MASTER 
NEGA  TIVE 
NO.  92-80498 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the  t^    •     » 

"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  by  the  ^ 

NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


ROWLAND,  WILLIAM  T. 


TITLE: 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE 
CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT... 


PLACE: 


NEW  YORK 


DA  TE : 


1918 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  U 


M^lUhil'-i. 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


5-i}<3/Pfv'()0   r/ooks       rUL/GI8   NYCG92-B9983 

Record  1  of  0  -  Record  added  today 

+ 


Acquisitions 


[D:NYCU92    R99r^3 
CC:9668      BLT:afTi 


CP:nyu 

PC:s^ 

MhO: 

100    i 
?Ab    10 

260 
300 
LDG 


DCF:? 
INT:7 


RFYP 

CSC 

GPC 

REP 

DM: 


a 


Gfip 
MOD: 
BIO:? 
CPIr? 


nm 

SNR 

nc 

FSI 
COL 


MG 


EL: 


7 


ATC 
CON 
ILC 
EML 


NYCG-PT 


AD:02-li-92 
U0:02-ll>92 


'-.  '■»  '"I 


7  97':' 


II 

GEN 


r 


BSE 


L  renq 
PD:1918/ 
OR:     POL:      DM:      RR 

Rowland,  Williain  Tingle,  r<il38i- 

On  The  Dosition  in  trie  clause  of  ne  and  ut  in  certain  documents  of  col 
loquial  Latint:hLniicrof  or  rn  ] ,  {:cbv  William  T,  Rowland. 
New  YorK,tbColum[)ia  University  Prcss,rCl918. 
'^   p.     1.  ,  1  1  .|:c25  cm. 
OCLC 

0?  -U-92 


'*-j3i;: 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE:__3^2_^J}1 REDUCTION     RATIO:__ 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA    ^)   ID     IIB 

DATE     FILMED:_iIb_j3_^A9.9^ INITI  ALS_Q^\AM5^Ci^_, 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUDLICATIONS,  INC  WOODDRIDGE,  CT 


\\  \ 


r 


Association  for  Information  and  image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12        3        4 


M 


6        7        8        9 

iiiiIiimIiiiiIiiiiImiiIiiiiImmIiiiiIiimIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiImiiIiiiiIiiiiIimiIiiiiI^ 


5 

L 


m 


10       11       12       13       14       15   mm 

liiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 


TTT 


Inches 


.0 


I.I 


1.25 


I'A 

2.8 

2.5 

y£ 

Illll-^ 

H    ^^ 

3.2 



2.2 

i  »  3 

^  III 

3.6 

lao 

4.0 

?.o 



lis     III 

' 

i& 

li     u 

tiibb. 

1.8 

1.4 

^ 

1.6 

6> 


O 


/ 


e. 


e 


<p. 


V 


MflNUFnCTURED   TO   flllM   STRNDRRDS 
BY   fiPPLIED   IMRGE.     INC. 


On  the  Position  in  the  Clause  of  Ne 

and  Ut  in  Certain  Documents 

of  Colloquial  Latin 


By 
William  T.  Rowland,  Ph.D. 


ff'a 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1918 

AU  rights  reserved 


Columbia  Mmbersfttp 

STUDIES  IN  CLASSICAL  PHILOLOGY 


On  the  Position  in  the  Clause  of  Ne 

and  Ut  in  Certain  Documents 

of  Colloquial  Latin 


On  the  Position  in  the  Clause  of  Ne 

and  Ut  in  Certain  Documents 

of  Colloquial  Latin 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
SALES  AGENTS 


NEW  YORK 

LEMCKE  &  BUECHNER 
30-32  West  27TH  Street 

LONDON 

HUMPHREY  MILFORD 
Amen  Corner,  E.C. 

shanghai 
EDWARD  EVANS  &  SONS,  Ltd. 
30  North  Szechuen  Road 


By 
William  T.  Rowland,  Ph.D. 


M^ 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1918 


All  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  191 8 
By  Columbia  University  Press 


Printed  from  type,  August,  191 8 


This  monograph  has  been  approved  by  the  Department  of 
Classical  Philology  in  Columbia  University  as  a  contribution 
to  knowledge  worthy  of  publication 

Clarence  H.  Young 

Chairman 


TO 

Professor  Edgar  Howard  Sturtevant 
OF  Columbia  University 


On  the  Position  in  the  Clause  of  Ne 

and  Ut  in  Certain  Documents 

of  Colloquial  Latin 

INTRODUCTION 

Scholars  have  long  since  observed  that  certain  Latin 
writers  rather  frequently  place  subordinate  conjunctions 
after  one  or  more  words  of  their  clauses,  e,  g.,  Plautus, 
Capt.  443,  haec  per  dexteram  tuam  te  dextera  retinens 
manu  opsecro,  infidelior  mihi  ne  fuas  quam  ego  tibi; 
Pseudolus  128,  omni  poplo  omnibus  amicis  notisque  edico 
meis,  in  hunc  diem  a  me  ut  caveant,  ne  credant  mihi.  The 
phenomenon  appears  superficially  as  a  deviation  from  the 
'normal'  order  with  the  subordinate  conjunction  at  the 
head  of  its  clause,  and  consequently  it  is  commonly  called 
'transposition',  'trajection',  or  the  like.  It  has  sometimes 
been  assumed  that  the  purpose  of  such  'transposition' 
is  to  secure  greater  emphasis  for  the  word  or  w^ords  which 
are  put  ahead  of  the  conjunction.  E.  g.,  Kuhner,  Ausf. 
LaL  Gram,  II,  2,  S.  614,  Die  einen  Nebensatz  einleitenden 
Konjunktionen  (ut,  cum,  si  u.  a.)  und  Pronomen  (Relativa 
und  Interrogativa)  haben  ihren  eigentlichen  und  gewohn- 
lichen  Platz  an  der  Spitze  des  Nebensatzes,  doch  werden 
sie  nicht  selten  durch  ein  betontes  Wort  zuruckgedrangt. 
C/.,  Abbott,  Selected  Letters  of  Cicero,  Ep.  LXXVIII,  3,  n, 
"the  position  of  ut  in  the  middle  of  the  clause  lays  emphasis 
upon  the  words  which  precede."  An  excellent  list  of  ex- 


2  ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 

amples  may  be  found  in  Schuenke,  De  Trajectione  Con- 
juncHonum  et  Pronominis  Relativi  apud  Po'etas  Latinos. 

There  are,  however,  several  weaknesses  in  the  popular 
way  of  looking  at  this  material.  Very  many  of  the  clauses 
whose  conjunctions  stand  in  the  'regular'  position  at  the 
head  are  nevertheless  'irregular'  in  that  the  verb  stands 
next  in  order,  e,  g.,  Terence,  Andria  163,  magis  id  adeo, 
mihi  ut  incommodet,  quam  ut  obsequatur  gnato  (c/.,  Sturte- 
vant  on  Terence,  Andria  160).  Even  more  significant  is 
the  fact  that  the  transposed  conjunction  is  usually  brought 
next  to  the  verb  wherever  that  may  stand,  e.  g.,  Andria 
168,  nunc  tuomst  ofificium,  has  bene  ut  adsimules  nuptias. 
In  other  words,  the  real  peculiarity  of  the  usage  is  not  the 
position  of  the  conjunction  but  the  relative  position  of 
the  conjunction  and  the  verb. 

The  current  opinion  that  rhetorical  considerations  led 
to  the  'transposition'  of  the  conjunction  takes  no  account 
of  the  facts  that  the  phenomenon  is  more  frequent  in 
early  Latin  than  in  classical  times  and  in  colloquial  speech 
than  in  more  formal  literature. 

The  cardinal  fact  is  that  in  early  Latin  certain  conjunc- 
tions tend  to  stand  immediately  before  the  verbs  of  their 
clauses.  The  only  sort  of  word  which  in  Latin  and  the 
related  languages  tends  to  occupy  the  position  before  the 
verb  is  the  adverb,  and  most  of  the  conjunctions  con- 
cerned are  clearly  of  adverbial  origin.  There  can  be  no 
doubt,  then,  that  the  adverbial  function  and  the  position 
before  the  verb  stand  in  close  relation  to  each  other; 
originally  the  conjunctional  adverbs  stood  before  the  verb, 
and  as  the  adverbial  conjunction  came  to  belong  more  to 
the  clause  as  a  whole  and  less  to  the  verb  it  lost  its  ten- 
dency to  stand  next  to  the  verb  and  came  to  be  put  at  the 
head  of  the  clause. 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT  3 

As  the  difference  between  conjunctional  adverbs  and 
adverbial  conjunctions  is  simply  a  difference  in  the  rela- 
tive strength  of  the  adverbial  and  conjunctional  elements 
in  the  words,  it  follows  that  clauses  with  conjunctional 
adverbs  are  relatively  loosely  attached  to  their  main 
clauses,  while  clauses  with  adverbial  conjunctions  are 
relatively  closely  attached.  We  thus  have  a  criterion  for 
determining  the  stage  of  development  from  parataxis  to 
hypotaxis  which  different  types  of  Latin  clauses  had 
reached  in  early  Latin. 

Transposition,  then,  is  important  as  indicating  the  his- 
torical growth  both  of  conjunctional  particles  and  the 
clauses  which  they  introduce.  Our  inquiry  for  the  present 
will  be  restricted  to  the  conjunctions  ne  and  ut, 

ETYMOLOGY  AND  FUNCTION  OF  NE 

Of  the  various  subordinate  conjunctions  none  perhaps 
shows  its  adverbial  origin  more  clearly  than  ne.  It  comes 
from  Indo-European  *w^,  and  is  cognate  with  Oscan  ni 
'ne'.  Old  Irish  nl  'non',  Gothic  ne  'nein',  Sanskrit  nd  'non'. 
It  represents  a  variant  (lengthened  grade)  of  Indo-Euro- 
pean *nej  which  appears  in  Sanskrit  na  'non',  etc.,  and  is 
preserved  in  Latin  ne-fas^  ne-scio,  etc.  The  original  mean- 
ing of  *ne,  as  of  *ne  was  'non',  but  in  the  Italic  languages 
it  took  the  place  of  Indo-European  *me  (Greek  /X17,  Sanskrit 
md)  as  a  prohibitive  particle.  The  original  meaning  sur- 
vives in  Latin  ne-qul-quam,  ne  .     .     ,  quidem,  etc.^ 

We  have  ample  evidence  of  ne  as  a  pure  adverb  in  inde- 
pendent and  paratactic  sentences,  where  it  is  regularly 

1  Kuhner  {Ausf.  Lat.  Gram.  II,  i.  S,  8i6)  briefly  states  its  function:  Ne 
verneint  wie  das  griechische  m^  subjektiv,  d.h.  es  wird  gebraucht,  wenn  etwas 
von  dem  subjektiven  Standpunkte  des  Redenden  aus  verneint,  nur  als  in  dem 
Willen  des  Redenden  nicht  seiend  bezeichnet  wird.  Durch  ne  wird  ein  Akt  des 
Willens  des  Redenden  ausgedruckt.  Es  steht  daher,  wenn  ein  Befehl,  eine 
Absicht,  ein  Wunsch,  eine  Aufiforderung,  eine  zweifelnde  Frage,  eine  Beteuerung 
negativ  ausgedruckt  werden  soil. 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


employed  with  the  imperative  and  subjunctive.  The  im- 
perative did  not  develop  beyond  an  independent  environ- 
ment, while  the  subjunctive,  though  without  doubt  origi- 
nally independent,  became  to  a  considerable  extent  the 
mood  of  subordination,  as  the  name  given  by  the  ancient 
grammarians  implies.  As  subjunctive  clauses  containing 
ne  came  to  be  subordinate,  ne  itself  gradually  developed 
into  a  conjunction.  (See  Morris,  On  Principles  and  Meth- 
ods in  Latin  Syntax y  p.  i6o/.)  Many  details  in  the  two 
parallel  processes  are  still  uncertain.  There  is  one  kind 
of  evidence  bearing  upon  the  problem,  which  has  not  yet 
been  fully  collected  or  exhaustively  studied.  The  regular 
position  of  Latin  adverbs,  and  in  fact  of  Indo-European 
adverbs  in  general,  is  immediately  before  the  modified 
words;  ne,  as  an  adverb,  must  originally  have  stood  as 
a  rule  immediately  before  its  verb.  Subordinate  conjunc- 
tions, however,  regularly  stand  at  the  head  of  their 
clauses,  and  ne  like  the  rest  is  frequently  separated  from 
its  verb  and  placed  at  the  head  of  the  clause.^ 

INDEPENDENT  CLAUSES  WITH  NE 

It  is  our  purpose  to  gather  and  to  study  statistics  on  the 
position  of  ne  in  various  kinds  of  clauses.  First,  we  shall 
consider  the  behavior  of  ne  in  independent  sentences  in 
order  to  determine  how  far  they  preserv^e  the  original 
preverbal  position  and  to  discover,  if  possible,  the  reason 
for  such  variation  from  that  position  as  may  be  found  to 
occur.  Its  position  in  the  majority  of  cases  conforms  to 
the  rule  that  adverbs  directly  precede  the  words  they 
modify.  Both  here  and  in  the  rest  of  the  discussion  we 
ignore  sentences  which  consist  of  adverb  and  verb  alone; 

*  Schuenke,  op.  cit.,  has  collected  instances  of  ne  in  the  interior  of  the  clause, 
but  he  has  not  instituted  a  statistical  comparison  between  these  and  the  clauses 
with  initial  ne. 


for  such  only  one  arrangement  is  possible.  The  following 
examples  comprise  practically  all  of  the  independent  sen- 
tences cited  in  Schuenke's  complete  list  from  Plautus  and 
Terence  with  a  few  added  from  our  own  collection  on  Cato: 

LegesXII  tabularum:^  I,  3,  Arceram  ne  sternito;  IX,  I,  Privilegia  ne 
inroganto;  X,  i,  Hominem  mortuum  in  urbe  ne  sepelito;    X,  4, 
Mulieris  genas  ne  radunto. 
Leges  regiae:^   Numa  Pompilius:    (i)  Vino  rogum  ne  respargito;   (2) 

Paelex  aram  lunonis  ne  tangito. 
PI.  Most.  886,  Mihi  molestus  ne  5ie<>.    (Aul.  458;  Men.  250;  Most.  74, 

601,  771,  877,  886;  Pseud.  889;  Rud.  1030;  Ten  Phormio  635.) 

Most.  215,  Scapha,  id  tu  mihi  ne  suadeas. 

Most.  468,  aedes  ne  attigatis. 

Most.  812,  Ergo  inridere  ne  videare  et  gestire  admodum. 

Epid.  145,  meam  domum  ne  inhitas. 

Capt.  947,  At  ob  earn  rem  mihi  libellam  pro  eo  argenti  ne  duis. 

Trin.  268,  Amor,  mihi  amicus  ne  fuas  umquam. 

Amph.  924,  da  mihi  hanc  veniam,  ignosce,  irata  ne  sies, 

Merc.  465,  ad  portum  ne  bitas,  deico  iam  tibi. 

Merc.  614,  quaeso  hercle,  animum  ne  desponde. 

Mil.  Glor.  283,  mihi  ne  dixis:  scire  nolo. 

Mil.  Glor.  1423,  de  tunica  et  chlamyde  et  machaera  wequid  speres. 

Poen.  23,  Servi  ne  obsideant,  liberis  ut  sit  locus. 

Poen.  553,  nos  tu  ne  curassis:  scimus  rem  omnem. 

Pseud.  118,  dabo:  molestus  nunciam  ne  sis  mihi. 
Ter.  Eun.  529,  aut  dicat  quod  volt  aut  molesta  ne  siet. 

Phorm.  419,  Ohe,  'actum'  aiunt  'ne  agas\ 

Phorm.  514,  unam  praeterea  horam  ne  oppertus  sies. 
Cato  V,  3,  rem  divinam  nisi  conpitalibus  in  conpito  aut  in  foco  ne  facial. 

V,  4,  politorem  diutius  eundem  ne  habeat  die. 

LXVII,  I,  ligna  in  torculario  ne  caedant. 

LXXXXII,  Frumento  ne  noceat  curculio  neu^  mures  tangant. 

Many  independent  sentences,  however,  exhibit  the  par- 
ticle in  the  initial  position  with  one  or  more  words  inter- 
vening between  it  and  the  verb. 

'See  Bruns,  Pontes  luris  Romani  Anliqui,  pp.  8,  18,  34,  35.  36. 
<  Neve  ineu)  always  stands  at  the  head  of  its  clause.     See  Wenglein,  Neve 
und  Neque  im  dlteren  Latein,  S.  4.  Sie  stehen  stets  an  der  Spitze  eines  Satzes. 


6  ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 

PI.  Amph.  8io,  Ne  me  appella. 

Amph.  330,  vix  incedo  inanis,  ne  ire  posse  cum  onere  existimes.^ 

Rud.  941,  ne  tu  mihi  esse  postules. 

Capt.  548,  Hegio,  hie  homo  rabiosus  habitus  est  in  Alide,  ne  tu  quod 

istic  fabuletur  auris  immittas  tuas. 

Most.  1023,  fides  servanda  est,  ne  ire  infitias  postules. 
Ter.  And.  789,  ne  me  attigas,  sceleste. 

In  addition  to  sentences  of  these  two  types  one  occasion- 
ally finds  ne  standing  in  the  interior  of  the  sentence  and 
yet  not  immediately  before  the  verb.  E.  g.,  PL  1  rin.  370, 
Tu  modo  ne  me  prohiheas  accipere,  si  quid  det  mihi.  This 
position  may  be  called  'intermediate*. 

Examples  with  the  particle  appearing  at  the  head  of 
the  sentence  and  immediately  followed  by  the  verb  might 
be  construed  as  ambiguous  with  reference  to  the  position 
of  the  particle,  for,  with  such  an  order  of  words,  the  par- 
ticle may  be  regarded  as  occupying  either  the  adverbial 
position  directly  before  the  verb  or  the  conjunctional  posi- 
tion at  the  head  of  the  clause.  It  should  be  obser\'ed, 
however,  that  this  class  of  clauses  tends  to  show  the 
association  of  particle  and  verb.  Viewed  in  this  light,  such 
clauses  may  add  weight  to  the  evidence  for  the  preverbal 
position  of  the  particle.    Examples  are  numerous: 

PI.  Most.  1097,  Ne  occupassis,  obsecro,  aram. 

Trin.  1012,  Ne  destiteris  currere. 
Ter.  And.  868,  Ah,  ne  saevi  tanto  opere. 
Cato  CXIV,  2,  ne  conmisceas  cum  cetero  vino. 
Cic.  Verr.  II,  i,  44,  A^e  sit  hoc  crimen  in  Verrem,  fecerunt  alii. 
Verg.  Aen.  IX,  1 14,  ne  trepidate  meas,  Teucri,  defendere  navis. 

A  majority  of  the  independent  clauses  examined  have 
ne  directly  preverbal  whether  or  not  the  verb  stands  at 
the   beginning  of   the   clause.      Function   and   position, 

*  Some  would  interpret  this  as  an  instance  of  the  'purpose  of  mention'.  See 
p.  8. 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT  7 

therefore,  correspond.  The  following  table,  which  repre- 
sents our  own  collection  exclusively,  is  based  on  Plautus*s 
Amphitruo,  Captivi,  Menaechmi,  Mostellaria,  Rudens, 
Trinummus;  Terence^s  Andria,  Adelphoe,  Hauton  Timo- 
rumenos,  Phormio;  Cato's  De  Agri  Cultura;  Horace's 
Satires  and  Epistles;  Cicero's  Letters  (Abbott's Selections), 
Philosophical  Works,  and  Orations;  Vergil's  Eclogues  and 
Aeneid.^  Unless  otherwise  specified,  the  statistical  tables 
that  follow  have  the  same  basis. 


Independent 

PL 

Cat. 

Ter. 

CICERO 

Verg. 

Hor. 

J 

ne-clause 

Letters 

PhiL 
6 

Oral. 
4 

Preverbal 

19 

25 

3 

13 

49% 

81% 

50% 

32% 

19% 

37% 

Preverbal  (verb 

forward) 

3 

2 

I 

I 

4 

5 

5 

5 

8% 

6% 

16% 

21% 

24% 

14% 

55% 

Intermediate 

2 

5% 

4 

13% 

2 
11% 

4 
11% 

Initial 

15 

2 

7 

12 

13 

4 

38% 

33% 

37% 

57% 

37% 

44% 

Remarks.  As  indicated  by  this  table,  the  preverbal  position  of  ne 
in  the  independent  clause  in  early  Latin  is  the  more  common  order. 
The  figures  will  show  to  better  advantage,  however,  if  we  contrast  the 
extreme  positions  of  the  particle  (that  is,  the  preverbal  and  initial  posi- 
tions) for  the  early  period  as  a  whole  as  represented  by  Plautus,  Cato, 
and  Terence.  As  a  result,  we  find  that  seventy-three  per  cent,  of  the 
total  number  of  examples  have  ne  in  the  preverbal  position  and  twenty- 
seven  per  cent,  in  the  initial  position.  If  we  include  the  examples  with 
the  verb  placed  forward  in  the  second  position  in  the  clause,  seventy- 
six  per  cent,  of  this  total  have  the  preverbal  position  of  we,  while 
twenty-four  per  cent,  have  the  initial  position.  In  like  manner,  by 
contrasting  the  preverbal  and  initial  positions  for  the  later  period  as 

«  Cicero's  orations  and  Vergil  are  included  to  furnish  a  basis  for  the  compari- 
son of  colloquial  Latin  with  standard  Latin. 


8 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


a  whole  (Cicero,  Horace,  Vergil)  we  see  that  fifty-five  per  cent,  of  the 
total  (including  the  preverbal  position  with  the  verb  standing  in  the 
second  position  in  the  clause)  have  the  preverbal  position,  while  forty- 
five  per  cent,  show  the  initial  position.  Then  finally  by  contrasting 
the  earlier  period,  as  a  whole,  with  the  later  period,  as  a  whole,  it  is 
clearly  seen  that  the  preverbal  position  is  more  frequent  in  early  Latin. 
The  particle  is  evidently  felt  as  belonging  more  to  its  clause  as  a  whole 
as  time  progresses. 

We  may  observe  also  the  difference  in  Cicero  between  the  preverbal 
position  of  the  particle  in  the  Philosophical  Works  and  Orations.  This 
difference  is  no  doubt  due  to  the  more  colloquial  nature  of  the  Philo- 
sophical Works. 

Statistics  then  corroborate  what  might  be  regarded  as 
the  natural  situation,  for  adverbs  in  general  tend  to  stand 
immediately  before  the  words  which  they  modify.  It  re- 
mains to  explain  the  rather  frequent  placing  of  the  parti- 
cle apart  from  the  verb  at  the  head  of  the  sentence.  Sev- 
eral factors  seem  to  have  cooperated  in  producing  this 
result.  The  emphatic  nature  of  the  negative  may  account 
for  the  initial  position  away  from  the  verb  or  the  idea  of 
negation  may  apply  to  the  sentence  as  a  whole,  so  that 
ne  thereby  becomes  a  sentence  negative.  C/.,  Hale-Buck, 
Lat,  Gram,,  p.  241,  "The  sentence  negative  for  impera- 
tive, volitive  or  optative  ideas  is  we."  Another  factor  is 
the  influence  of  subordinate  clauses.  Certain  of  these 
are  in  a  stage  of  development  where  they  may  be  regarded 
as  either  dependent  or  independent.  Consider,  for  ex- 
ample, PI.  Amph.  330,  Vix  incedo  inanis,  ne  ire  posse 
cum  onere  existimes  {cf.,  also  Ter.  Adelph.  113,  160). 
Some  might  interpret  this  as  a  clause  of  the  'purpose  of 
mention*  while  others  would  take  it  as  an  independent 
sentence.  The  fact  that  the  clause  might  be  felt  as  sub- 
ordinate would  inevitably  influence  the  position  of  the 
particle,  which  in  a  conjunctional  use  would  tend  to  be 
drawn  forward  toward  the  verb  of  the  main  clause. 


FINAL  CLAUSE  WITH  NE 

The  independent  sentence,  then,  which  shows  clearly 
the  adverbial  nature  of  ne,  preserves  in  a  majority  of  in- 
stances collected  from  early  Latin  the  original  preverbal 
position.  At  the  opposite  extreme,  so  far  as  the  position 
of  ne  IS  concerned,  stands  the  pure  final  clause.  The  fol- 
lowing table  gives  conclusive  evidence : 


Remarks.  This  synopsis  of  Negative  Final  Clauses  shows  clearly 
that  the  conjunctional  position  of  the  particle  at  the  head  of  the  clause 
was  definitely  fixed  even  in  the  time  of  Plautus.  We  may  observe, 
moreover,  that  instances  of  the  intermediate  position  are  relatively 
very  few,  thus  emphasizing  the  fact  of  the  regularity  of  the  initial  con- 
junctional position. 

According  to  Schuenke's  lists,  the  plays  of  Plautus  and 
Terence  in  their  entirety,  out  of  the  total  of  thirty-three 
instances  of  ne  in  the  so-called  transposed  order  with  ne 
immediately  before  the  verb  exhibit  but  two  instances  of 
ne  in  a  final  clause,  and  these  are  possibly  to  be  accounted 
for  on  rhetorical  grounds.  (See  Schuenke,  op.  cit.,  p.  54-) 
The  examples  referred  to  are:  Ter.  And.  23,  dehinc  ut 
quiescant  porro  moneo  et  desinant  maledicere,  malefacta 


10 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


II 


ne  noscant  sua;  PL  Stich.  554,  *si  vis/  inquit,  'quattuor 
sane  dato,  dum  equidem  hercle  quod  edint  addas,  meum  ne 
contruncent  cibum.'  The  conjunctional  nature  and  con- 
junctional position  of  the  particle  are  clearly  seen,  then, 
in  the  pure  final  clause. 

So  much  for  the  position  of  ne  in  the  extreme  types 
of  clauses  in  which  it  is  used,  namely,  the  independent 
and  pure  final.  Between  the  two  extremes,  as  far  as 
the  position  of  ne  is  concerned,  fall  the  substantive 
clauses,  which  it  will  be  convenient  to  discuss  in  connec- 
tion with  the  substantive  ^/-clauses. 

But  first  we  must  examine  ut  in  independent  and  final 
sentences.  This  particle  is  employed  much  more  exten- 
sively than  ne  and  its  classification  with  reference  to  the 
subject  of  trajection  is  correspondingly  more  complex. 

ETYMOLOGY  AND  FUNCTION  OF  UT 

The  etymology  of  ut  and  its  equivalent  utl  presents 
difficulty  in  several  details,  but  the  main  features  are 
fairly  clear.  The  meaning  of  the  word  points  to  a  con- 
nection with  the  relative-interrogative  stem,  and  such  a 
connection  is  quite  obvious  in  the  case  of  the  correspond- 
ing Oscan  puz  {cf,,  pui  *qui')  and  Umbrian  puze  (cf.y  pot 
*qui').  There  is  no  doubt  that  ut  is  a  derivative  of  qui, 
or  rather  of  a  stem  quu-  parallel  to  the  stems  qui-  and 
q^O'  which  appear  in  the  pronoun.  The  loss  of  the  initial 
consonant  of  ut  is  to  be  explained  in  the  same  way  as  the 
similar  loss  in  ubi  beside  ne-ciibi,  sl-cubi,  Oscan  puf,  and 
Umbrian  pufe.  Scholars  are  not  agreed  as  to  whether 
initial  qu  was  regularly  lost  before  u  in  Latin,  or,  on  the 
other  hand,  ubi,  etc.,  resulted  from  the  incorrect  division 
of  sl-cubi  as  slc-ubiy  etc.  (See  Brugmann  Grundriss  2, 
II,  2,  350;  Sommer,  Handbuch  der  lateinischen  Laut-und 


Formenlehre^y  185,  and  references.)  In  the  case  of  ut 
the  loss  of  qu  may  have  been  partly  due  to  an  inherited 
demonstrative  uti  cognate  with  Avestan  u*ti  *thus\  and 
this  demonstrative  may  be  actually  preserved  in  uti-nam. 
The  parallelism  of  ut  and  qui  in  independent  optative 
sentences  (see  p.  13)  is  against  this  latter  etymology, 
and  we  may  safely  disregard  it  in  the  sequel.^  The 
adverbial  suffix  in  w/,  uti-nam,  uti-que  is  perhaps  the  -ti 
of  Sanskrit  i-ti  'thus*.  The  loss  of  the  final  short  vowel 
in  ut  and  also  in  Oscan  puz  (from  "^pu-t-s)  and  Umbrian 
puze  (from  *pu-t'S-t)  is  due  to  syncope,  as  in  Latin  nee 
beside  neque,  Oscan  puf  beside  Latin  ubi-que,  etc.  The 
long  vowel  of  utl  (formerly  a  diphthong,  utei)  cannot  be 
original.  While  the  short  vowel  of  utinam  might  be  due 
to  iambic  shortening,  the  syncopated  forms  of  Latin  and 
especially  of  Oscan-Umbrian  presuppose  an  original  short 
vowel.  Perhaps  utei  came  to  be  used  beside  uti  under  the 
influence  of  ubei  (later  ubl)  beside  ubi  (whose  existence  in 
prehistoric  Latin  is  made  probable  by  syncopated  Oscan 
puf). 

The  original  meanings  of  ut  and  utei  must  have  been  (i) 
'how?*  (2)  'somehow',  (3)  'how',  relative,  and  possibly 
(4)  'thus*.  This  last  meaning  is  preserved,  if  at  all,  in 
sentences  of  wish  and  probably,  as  we  shall  see,  not  even 
there.  The  other  three  meanings  belonged  also  to  the 
ablative  qui  and  quo,  which  occur  in  early  Latin  in  many 
of  the  sam  t  constructions. 

In  the  previous  discussion  of  ne,  its  original  office  as 
a  negative  adverb  was  shown  not  only  by  its  etymology 
and  meaning,  but  also  by  its  use  in  the  independent  clause 

^  C/.,  ws.  introducing  wishes  in  Greek.  See  Brugmann  Demonstrativ-pro- 
nomina  i88,  Grundriss^  II,  2,  731.  Walde  wrongly  understands  Brugmann 
as  denying  all  connection  between  ut  and  qui. 


12 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


where  its  adverbial  position  was  found  to  correspond  to 
its  function  in  the  majority  of  its  occurrences  in  the  Latin 
we  have  studied.  In  the  case  of  ut  the  situation  with 
reference  to  the  independent  sentence  is  more  involved, 
and  scholars  are  at  variance  as  to  the  significance  of  the 
particle  in  certain  of  its  uses.  Before  attempting  to  com- 
ment on  its  position,  it  will  be  necessary  to  make  a  brief 
investigation  of  its  function.  This,  to  repeat,  is  the 
problem  at  hand,  to  show  that  the  position  of  the  con- 
junction parallels  its  function  and  consequently  refutes 
the  opinion  that  'trajection'  is  ordinarily  due  to  consid- 
erations of  emphasis. 

Dahl  {Die  lateinische  Partikel  ut,  S.  293)  does  not  accept 
an  independent  value  of  ut: 

Als  Erklarung  dieser  w/-Satze  glauben  wir  eine  ursprungliche  Ellipse 
statuiren  zu  mussen,  bei  Wunschen  von  volo,  velim,  opto  u.  dgl.,  bei 
Aufforderungen  von  vide,  cura  u.  dgl. 

Schnoor  on  the  other  hand  (Zum  Gebrauch  von  ut  bei 
PlautuSy  S.  i)  recognizes  the  independent  function: 

Bevor  die  den  Konjunktionen  jetzt  innewohnende  Bedeutung  in 
sie  eingezogen  ist,  bevor  sie  als  wirkliche  Bindeglieder,  als  Konjunk- 
tionen, die  Beziehung  zweier  Satze  zu  einander  vermittelten,  wurden 
sie  in  fruhester  Zeit  selbstandig  gebraucht.  Es  wurde  durch  Hin- 
zufugung  einer  Partikel  zu  einem  Satze  diesem  nur  mehr  Kraft  ver- 
liehen,  wahrend  der  Sinn,  der  demselben  zu  Grunde  lag,  derselbe 
blieb,  mochte  die  Partikel  fehlen  oder  gesetzt  sein.  Dies  ist  besonders 
leicht  an  der  Partikel  ut  zu  erkennen,  deren  ursprunglichen  Gebrauch 
wir  beim  Plautus  deutlich  ersehen.    Folgende  Beispiele 

Poen.  912,  valeas  beneque  ut  sit  tibi! 

Men.  308,  di  illos  homines,  qui  illic  habitant,  perduint! 

Aul.  778,  ut  ilium  di  immortales  omnes  deaeque  quantumst  perduint! 

Capt.  537,  utinam  te  di  prius  perderent  .  .  . ! 
zeigen,  dass  unbeschadet  des  Sinnes  die  Partikeln  fehlen  konnen.    Das 
ut  wie  auch  utinam  sind  in  obigen  Beispielen  nichts  weiter  als  ein 
kraftiger  Ausdruck  des  Wunsches. 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


13 


In  der  weiteren  Entwicklung  der  Sprache  wurde  dann  solchem  selb- 
standigen,  von  der  Partikel  ut  eingeleiteten  Satze  ein  verbum  regens 
vorgesetzt,  wodurch  die  Hypotaxe  aus  der  Parataxe  entstand,  wodurch 
die  Partikel  ut  Bindeglied,  Konjunktion  wurde. 

The  whole  matter  is  discussed  by  Durham,  The  Sub- 
junctive Substantive  Clauses  in  Plautus  Not  Including 
Indirect  Questions ,  p.  6: 

Qui  the  adverb  has  relative,  interrogative  and  indefinite  functions. 
The  relative  and  interrogative  forces  of  ut  are  placed  beyond  dispute 
by  a  multitude  of  examples.  The  interrogative  force  is  in  classical 
Latin,  to  be  sure,  confined  mainly  to  indirect  questions,  but  in  Plautus 
it  is  common  as  a  direct  interrogative,  and  it  occurs  here  and  there  in 
classical  times.  C/.,  e.  g.,  Hon  Sat.  11,  8,  i,  and  Kiessling,  ad  loc.  Why 
should  lit  not  complete  the  analogy  and  have  an  indefinite  value  cor- 
responding to  that  of  qui  'in  some  way*,  'somehow*,  'just'?  That  ut 
did  have  this  force  seems  clear  from  the  fact  that  it  is  freely  used  inter- 
changeably with  qui  in  independent  optative  and  jussive  uses  in  early 
Latin;  c/.,  e.g.,  Terence,  Phorm.  123,  qui  ilium  di  omnes  perduint; 
with  Eun,  302,  Ut  ilium  di  deaeque  perdant.  For  further  illustrations 
of  the  use  of  ut,  see  Plant.  Capt.  115,  sed  uti  adserventur  magna  dili- 
gentia:  Ter.  Ad.  280,  At  ut  omnes  reddat.  In  many  of  these  sentences 
it  is  usual  to  explain  the  w/-clause  as  subordinate  and  dependent  upon 
some  verb  to  be  supplied,  such  as /ac,  cura,  or  the  like.  But  this  seems 
extremely  unnatural  and  in  many  instances  creates  serious  difficulty, 
e.  g.,  in  the  case  of  optatives  above  cited.  Moreover  it  involves  taking 
ut  in  such  sentences  differently  from  qui,  whereas  the  equivalence  of 
usage  of  the  two  particles  is  manifest.  In  further  support  of  the  value 
of  ut  (qui)  above  maintained,  cf.,  the  use  of  modo,  originally  'in  a  way', 
'in  some  way*,  'only*;  precisely  the  same  development  is  main- 
tained for  ut  and  qui  as  for  modo;  all  are  indefinite  instrumental  of 
manner. 

The  evidence  given  below  shows  that  the  'trajection* 
of  ut  is  chiefly  confined  to  clauses  in  which  Durham  calls 
ut  'indefinite'.  At  the  very  least,  this  state  of  affairs  in- 
dicates that  the  ut  which  Durham  calls  'indefinite*  cannot 
be  identical  with  relative  or  interrogative  ut  as  Dahl  and 


14 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


15 


Others  have  supposed.    We  therefore  have  no  hesitation 
in  accepting  Durham's  conclusions. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  consider  first  ut  interrogative 
and  relative,  which  rarely  show  'trajection'. 

UT  INTERROGATIVE 

Examples  of  interrogative  ut  in  the  independent  sen- 
tence are  not  abundant,  its  more  extensive  use  appearing 
of  course  in  indirect  questions.  Its  position,  as  is  the  case 
with  interrogative  words  and  particles  in  general  in  all 
languages,  is  naturally  at  the  head  of  its  clause:  Plaut. 
Merc.  392,  ut  moratast  mulier?  Pers.  553,  ut  munitum 
muro  visumst  oppidum?  Cas.  688,  ut  sunt  sentes?  Bacch. 
208,  ut  eam  credis?  Cure.  59,  ut  illam  censes?  Horace, 
Sat.  II,  8,  I,  ut  Nasidieni  iuvit  te  cenabeati?  Ep.  i,  3,  12, 
ut  valet?  ut  meminit  nostri? 

Closely  allied  to  the  direct  interrogation  is  the  exclama- 
tion, developing  doubtless  through  the  Vhetoricar  ques- 
tion. The  interrogative  position  is  regularly  retained. 
The  following  examples  are  taken  from  Dahl,  op,  cit., 

S.  9/. 

As.  982,  ut  osculutur  carnufex! 

Aul.  52,  ut  scelesta  sola  secum  murmurati 

Bacch.  795,  ut  verba  mihi  dat!  ut  nescio  quam  rem  gerat! 

Cas.  463,  ut  ego  hodie  Casinam  deosculahor! 

Mil.  Glor.  467,  ut  suhlinetur  os  custodi  cauto,  conservo  meo! 

Most.  163,  ut  lepide  res  omnes  tenet  sententiasque  amantium! 

Poen.     1210,  w/  pudice  werbai  fecit,  cogitate  et  commode! 

Pseud.  552,  ut  mihi,  quidquid  ago,  lepide  omnia  prospereque  eveniunti 

Stich.    466,  ut  prae  laetitia  lacrumae  prosiliunt  mihi! 

Haut.    T.  649,  ut  stultae  et  miserae  omnes  religiosae! 

Hec.      406,  O  fortuna,  ut  numquam  perpetuo  es  data! 

Hor.      Sat.  II,  8,  62,  ut  semper  gaudes  illudere  rebus  humanis! 

Epod.  II,  19,  ut  gaudet  insitiva  decerpens  pira  certantem  et 
uvam  purpurae! 


Verg.  Aen.  VIII,  154,  «/ te,  fortissime  Teucrum,  accipio  agnoscoque 
libens !  ut  verba  parentis  et  vocem  Anchisae  magni  vultumque 
recorder! 

Cic.  Flacc.  12,  cum  dicit  testimonium,  ut  se  ipse  sustentat!  ut  omnia. 
verba  moderatur! 

The  direct  interrogation  and  exclamation,  then,  have 
'interrogative'  ut  at  the  head  of  its  clause  and  often  very 
widely  separated  from  the  verb.  Such  sentences  mani- 
festly preclude  the  discussion  of  transposition.  Their 
form  is  stereotyped. 

Dependent  interrogative  ut,  as  would  naturally  be  ex- 
pected, appears  in  the  great  majority  of  instances  at  the 
head  of  the  clause.  Our  figures  are  based  on  examples  of 
early  Latin  taken  from  Becker's  elaborate  treatise  on  the 
indirect  question.  (See  Studemund's  Studien  des  archa- 
ischen  Lateins,  1, 115  Seq.)  Clauses  of  only  two  words  are 
of  course  not  included  in  the  count. 

Preverbal  14  (i3  per  cent.) 

Preverbal  (verb  forward)  14  (13  per  cent.) 

Intermediate  10  (  9  per  cent.) 

Initial  71  (65  percent.) 

The  fourteen  sentences  with  the  particle  transposed  are 
the  following: 


Amph. 


Rud. 
Poen. 


Trin. 

Capt. 

Merc. 

Cas. 

Pseud. 


135,  ibi  nunc  mens  pater  memorat,  legiones  hostium  utfugaverit. 
662,  atque  id  se  volt  experiri,  suom  abitum  ut  desiderem? 
744,  Quis  igitur  nisi  vos  narravit  mi,  illi  utfuerit  proelium. 
573,  At  vides  me  ornatus  ut  sim  vestimentis  uvidis. 
195,  abeamus  intro,  ut  Collybiscum  vilicum  hanc  perdoceamus 

utferat  fallaciam. 
460,  quom  scibunt,  Veneri  ut  adierit  leno  manum. 
698,  Scio  equidem  te  animatus  ut  sis. 
292,  proinde  aliis  ut  credat  vide. 
14,  sed  ea  ut  sim  implicitus  dicam. 

334,  quasi  tu  nescias,  repente  ut  emoriantur  humani  Joves. 
683,  stulti  hau  scimus,  frustra  ut  sitnus. 


i6 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


17 


Bacch.  1 130,  Viden  limulis,  obsecro,  ut  intuentur? 
Phorm.  224,  Meministin,  olim  ut  fuerit  vostra  oratio. 
Haut.    T.  189,  timet  omnia,  iram  patris  et  animum  amicae  se  erga  ut 
sit  suae. 

In  these  sentences  it  is  well  to  note  that  'trajection*  is 
not  so  marked  as  is  often  the  case  in  substantive  volitive 
clauses  which  are  introduced  by  indefinite*  ut.  (See 
p.  28.)  In  two  of  the  examples  cited,  Amph.  662  and 
Haut.  T.  189,  the  dependent  clauses  are  appositional, 
a  fact  which  may  account  for  the  transposition.  (See 
p.  32.)  For  Rud.  573  and  Trin.  698,  c/.,  p.  35.  The 
others  are  probably  due  to  the  analogy  of  substantive 
clauses.  (See  p.  27  ff.)  Since  indirect  questions  are  them- 
selves substantive  clauses,  they  were  much  more  easily 
affected  by  the  analogy  of  other  substantive  clauses  than 
were  the  relative  clauses. 

The  striking  and  important  fact  is  that  nearly  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  examples  show  ut  in  the  initial  position, 
that  is,  in  the  position  regularly  occupied  by  interrogative 
ut  in  independent  clauses. 

UT  RELATIVE 

Relative  ut  (modal,  temporal,  causal,  concessive,  re- 
strictive, etc.),  which  of  necessity  is  confined  to  the  sub- 
ordinate clause,  has  a  very  extensive  use  and  the  function, 
of  course,  is  strictly  conjunctional.  And  just  as  might 
be  anticipated  from  its  probable  interrogative  origin,  its 
position  in  most  instances  is  at  the  head  of  the  clause: 

Capt.    228,  Ero  ut  me  voles  esse. 

261,  Ut  vos  hie,  itidem  illic  apud  vos  meus  servatur  filius. 

314,  uti  te  me  hie  habueris,  proinde  ilium  illic  euraverit. 

885,  Quia  enim  item  asperae  sunt  ut  tuom  victum  autumabas 
esse. 
Men.     206,  Quattuor  minae  perierunt  plane,  ut  ratio  redditur. 
Most.    268.  Ut  speeulum  tenuisti,  metuo  ne  olant  argentum  manus. 


Trin.     311,  nimio  satlust,  ut  opust  te  ita  esse. 

713,  si  mihi  tua  soror,  ut  ego  aequom  censeo,  ita  nuptum  datur. 
And.     421,  Faeis  ut  te  decet. 

445,  ut  virum  fortem  decet. 

590,  ut  hinc  te  intro  iri  iussi,  hie  fit  mi  obviam. 

77,  ita  ut  ingeniumst  omnium  hominum  ab  labore  proclive  ad 
lubidinem,  aecepit  condieionem. 
Adelph.  399,  ut  suom  quisque  esse  volt. 
Haut.    T.  212,  ut  tempus  est  diei. 

686,  ut  ego  nune  non  tam  meapte  causa  laetor  quam  illius. 
Cic.       Pis.  59,  dices  enim,  ut  es  homo  factus  ad  persuadendum. 

Tuse.  I,  108,  permulta  alia  eonligit  Chrysippus,  ut  est  in  omni 
historia  curiosus. 

Statistics  on  'relative'  ut  show  the  conjunctional  posi- 
tion greatly  in  the  majority. 


CICERO 

Relative  ut 

PI. 
3 

Cat. 

I 

Ter. 

I 

Verg. 
6 

Hnr 

Letters 

Phil. 
4 

Orat. 
3 

£1UT  . 

Preverbal 

2 

3% 

8% 

2% 

6% 

3% 

Preverbal  (verb 

4 

3 

7 

87 

48 

8 

5 

forward) 

4% 

6% 

11% 

14% 

12% 

7% 

8% 

Intermediate 

7 

I 

I 

8 

15 

23 

6 

6% 

8% 

2% 

1% 

4% 

23% 

10% 

Initial 

94 

10 

45 

56 

535 

339 

64 

47 

87% 

83% 

90% 

89% 

84% 

84% 

63% 

78% 

Remarks.  Cicero's  Letters,  Philosophical  Works  and  Orations  have 
three,  thirteen  and  eleven  instances,  respectively,  of  relative  ut  in  the 
preverbal  position.  Our  table  shows  a  reduction  of  these  figures,  as 
we  have  excluded  clauses  which  are  introduced  by  relative  pronouns, 
for  it  is  obvious  that  ut  cannot  be  regarded  as  'transposed'  in  such 
sentences  as  De  Re  Pub.  1,25,  qui  ut  scribit;  VI,  14,  quem  ut  vidi;  VI,9, 
Ad  quem  ut  veni;  De  Harusp.  42,  Unde  ut  rediit. 

Summarized,  the  table  shows  that  in  the  earlier  period  ninety-seven 
per  cent,  of  the  examples  employing  relative  ut  have  the  initial  posi- 


i8 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


19 


tion  of  the  particle,  with  three  per  cent,  in  the  preverbal  position.  In 
the  later  period  ninety-nine  per  cent,  show  the  initial  position  of  w/, 
with  one  per  cent,  in  the  preverbal  position. 

Vergil  shows  a  very  large  percentage  of  the  intermediate  position, 
which  is  undoubtedly  due  to  metrical  difficulties.  (See  also  tables 
pp.  24,  30.) 

CONSECUTIVE  UT 

In  the  opinion  of  Bennett  {Syntax  of  Early  Latin,  I, 
p.  296),  the  ut  used  to  introduce  consecutive  clauses 
'seems  to  have  been  originally  relative*.  Nor  does  he 
believe  with  Schlicher  {Classical  Philology,  II,  p.  79  f-) 
and  Dittmar  {Studien  zur  lat.  Moduslehre,  S.  87)  that  this 
construction  had  its  origin  in  the  repudiating  question. 

The  position  of  the  particle  in  the  clause  supports  Ben- 
nett's view.  As  we  shall  point  out  below,  p.  22,  ut  in  the 
repudiating  question  is  frequently  'transposed'  in  accor- 
dance with  its  indefinite  adverbial  function,  while  in  the 
consecutive  clause,  ut  normally  occupies  the  conjunctional 
position  at  the  head  of  the  clause,  a  fact  which  points  to 
an  original  relative  (conjunctional)  function.  The  fol- 
lowing table  shows  the  frequency  of  occurrence  of  the 
initial  position: 


Consecutive 

PL 

Cat. 

Ter. 

CICERO 

Verg. 

1 1  or 

iit-claiises 

Letters 

Phil. 

Orat. 

Preverbal 

Preverbal  (verb 
forward) 

Intermediate 

Initial 

I 
3% 

I 

3% 
30 

94% 

2 
15% 

3 

23% 

8 

62% 

6 

12% 
3 
6% 

4 

8% 
36 

74% 

2 

2% 
8 

8% 

2 

2% 
78 

87% 

5 

47 
6% 

12 

2% 
745 
92% 

5 

47 

4% 

29 

2% 
1095 
93% 

7 

58% 

5 
42% 

4 
9% 

4 

9% 
35 
81% 

INDEFINITE  UT 

Indefinite  ut  is  used  with  the  jussive  and  optative  sub- 
junctive. The  independent  jussive  subjunctive  clause  in 
contrast  with  the  independent  interrogative  exhibits  many 
instances  of  the  preverbal  position  of  ut.  The  material 
for  early  Latin  is  given  by  Bennett,  Syntax  of  Early 
Latin,  I,  p.  165.  The  majority  of  Bennett's  examples 
show  ut  in  the  preverbal  position.     They  are  as  follows: 

Bacch.   739,  proin  tu  ab  eo  ut  caveas  tibi. 

Capt.      115,  sed  uti  adserventur  magna  diligentia. 

Cure.     257,  operam  ut  det. 

Poen.     29,  domi  ut  procurent. 

Stich.     106,  sed  utraque  ut  dicat. 

Haut.     T.  470,  per  alium  quemvis  ut  des,  falli  te  sinas. 

572,  at  certe  ut  hinc  concedas. 
Phorm.  212,  em,  istuc  serva;  et  verbum  verbo,  par  pari  ut  respondeas. 
Adelph.  741,  id  arte  ut  corrigas. 
Cato     XXI I, I,  librator  uti  statuatur. 
C.  I.  L.  I,  196,  23,  haice  uti  exdeicatis. 

The  figures  on  this  material  are: 

Preverbal  1 1  (48  per  cent.) 

Preverbal  (verb  forward)  2  (  8  per  cent.) 

Intermediate  2  (  8  per  cent.) 

Initial  8  (35  per  cent.) 

In  the  optative  independent  clause  the  position  of  ut 
(the  reenforcing  particle)  is  normally  initial.  It  is  there- 
fore clearly  at  variance  with  the  jussive  position.  Accord- 
ing to  Bennett  {Syntax  of  Early  Latin,  I,  p.  192)  the 
material  falls  chiefly  under  a  few  oft-recurring  formulas. 
Examples : 

Aul.      785,  ut  ilium  di  immortales  omnes  deaeque  quantum  est  per- 
duint. 


20  ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 

Merc.    710,  ut  te  omnes,  Demipho,  di  perduint. 

Haut.    T.  8x0,  ut  tequidem  di  deaeque  quantumst,  O  Syre,  cum  istoc 

invento  cumque  incepto  perduint. 
Cas.       238,  ut  te  bonus  Mercurius  perdat. 
Pers.      298,  tit  ilium  di  perdant. 
Eun.      302,  Ut  ilium  di  deaeque  senium  perdant. 
Phorm.  687,  Ut  tequidem  di  deaeque  omnes  superi  atque  inferi  malis 

exemplis  perdant. 
Stat.      1 14,  ut  te  di  infelicent. 

As.         21,  ut  superstes  uxor  siet  atque  ut  pestem  oppetas. 
Pers.     290,  Tandem  ut  liceat,  quom  servos  sis,  servom  tibi  male  dicere. 
Rud.      82,  ut  hostes  diffidant  sibi. 
Mil.       141 7.  w^  vivam  semper  intestabilis. 

The  view  that  ut  with  the  optative  was  originally  inter- 
rogative has  current  acceptance.  Hale  (Hale-Buck  Lat. 
Gram. J  p.  269,  footnote)  says  that  wishes  with  ut  were 
originally  potential  questions.  ('how*  .  .  .  might?) 
Lane  {Lat.  Gram.,  p.  247)  thinks  ut  in  wishes  was  origi- 
nally interrogative  'how*.  Gildersleeve  (Lat.  Gram.,  p. 
172)  maintains  a  similar  opinion,  and  so  Probst, 
Beitrdge  zur  Lat.  Gram.,  S.  147.  Bennett  {Syntax  of  Early 
Latin,  I,  p.  165),  on  the  contrary,  lays  stress  on  the 
original  'indefinite'  function  and  thinks  that  the  'interroga- 
tive* origin  has  not  been  satisfactorily  explained.  Accord- 
ing to  his  contention,  there  is  no  difference  in  function 
between  optative  and  jussive  ut;  it  is  the  particle  of  re- 
enforcement  (Probst's  Versicherungspartikel).  And  this, 
we  have  already  concluded,  is  in  origin  indefinite  ut.  As 
we  have  just  pointed  out,  optative  ut  is  usually  initial 
while  jussive  ut  tends  to  stand  next  to  the  verb.  If, 
according  to  Bennett,  the  function  of  the  particle  is  identi- 
cal, why  should  there  be  a  discrepancy  in  position?  This 
difference  may  be  due  simply  to  the  form  of  sentence  in 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


21 


which  it  is  used,  jussive  ut  holding  to  the  original  adverbial 
position,  while  optative  ut  becomes  fixed  as  a  rule  in  the 
initial  position  from  usage  in  interrogative-exclamatory 
sentences  in  which  particles  are  necessarily  drawn  to  the 
head  of  the  sentence.  As  regards  this  exclamatory  influ- 
ence on  the  position  of  the  particle,  we  should  remember 
that  one  of  the  strongest  arguments  for  the  original  'in- 
definite' character  of  ut  is  its  parallelism  with  the  indefi- 
nite adverb  'qui',  and  qui  is  used  in  imprecations  only. 
(See  Hale-Buck  Lat.  Gram.,  p.  269,  and  Lane  Lat.  Gram., 
p.  247.)  In  the  substantive  clause,  of  course,  optative 
ut  like  jussive  ut  shows  frequent  'transposition',  but  the 
exclamatory  sentence  as  such  could  hardly  be  maintained 
in  a  dependent  relationship,  as  it  is  scarcely  possible 
for  an  exclamation  to  become  dependent  without  losing 
its  exclamatory  character.  Utinam,  for  example,  though 
quite  common  in  the  independent  clause,  never  functions 
in  a  subordinate  clause. 

The  fact  that  optative  ut  usually  appears  in  the  initial 
position  might  seem  to  point  to  an  'interrogative'  origin, 
but  granting  this  to  be  so,  how  can  the  preverbal  position 
of  jussive  ut  be  explained?  The  only  recourse  apparently 
would  be  to  reject  altogether  an  independent  value  for 
jussive  ut,  and  to  accept  the  current  explanation  that  such 
clauses  are  'elliptical'. 

The  indefinite  value  as  urged  by  Bennett  seems  to  us 
a  very  natural  one,  and  position  and  function  are  made  to 
correspond  with  the  simple  explanation  we  have  suggested 
for  the  position  of  optative  ut. 

REPUDIATING  QUESTIONS  WITH  UT 

Another  important  independent  use  of  ut  is  found  in 
the  question  of  indignation  or  repudiation  (Die  unwilligen 


22 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


23 


Oder  misbilligen  Fragen).^  In  these  clauses  ut  tends  to 
Stand  next  to  the  verb.^  Note  that  only  one  of  the  fol- 
lowing examples  shows  ut  in  the  initial  position. 

Amph.   694,  Quid  enim  censes?  te  ut  deltidam  contra  lusorem  meum? 
Bacch.  842,   Meamne  hie  Mnesilochus,  Nicobuli  filius,  per  vim  ui 

retineat  mulierem? 
Cist.      662,  Nam  hercle  ego  illam  anum  irridere  me  ut  sinam? 
Cure.     616,  meane  ancilla  libera  ut  sit,  quam  ego  numquam  ei.iisi 

manu? 
Men.      683,  Mihi  tu  ut  dederis  pallam  et  spinter?    numquam  factum 

reperies. 
Trin.      378,  Egone  indotatam  te  uxorem  ut  patiar? 
True.     441,  egone  illam  ut  non  amem? 
And.       263,  ein  ego  ut  adverser! 
And.       618,  Oh,  tibi  ego  ut  credam? 

Haut.  T.  1050,  Egon  mea  bona  ut  dem  Bacchidi  dono  sciens? 
Phorm.  992,  Hicine  ut  tibi  respondeat,  qui  hercle  ubi  sit  nesciat? 
Phorm.  669,  me  ille  ut  inrideat? 

Phorm.  304,  egone  illam  cum  illo  ut  patiar  nuptam  unum  diem? 
As.         884,  egon  ut  non  uxori  meae  suhripiam  in  deliciis  pallam  quam 

habet  atque  ad  te  deferam? 
Men.  683,  ut  mihi  tu  dederis  pallam? 
Most.     10 1 7,  mecum  ut  ille  hie  gesserit  negotii? 

Classification  of  the  particle  in  these  sentences  is  an 
open  question.  Dahl/^  as  seen  before,  is  inclined  to  place 
sentences  such  as  the  foregoing  under  the  head  of  'ellip- 
tische  w/-Satze*  and  consequently  does  not  admit  either 
an  independent  *  indefinite*  or  an  independent  interroga- 
tive usage.  Bennett  {Syntax  of  Early  Latin,  I,  p.  190) 
quotes  as  the  prevailing  view  Morris  {Anier,  Journ.  Phil., 

8  Cf.,  Schnoor,  Zum  Gebrauch  von  ut  bet  Plautus.  S.  3;  Kraz,  Modus  der  rheto- 
rischen  Frage,  S.  30/.;  Muller,  Uber  die  sogenannlen  unwilligen  oder  misbilligen 
Fragen  im  Lateinischen. 

«  Of  the  examples  cited  by  Kraz  in  his  discussion  of  the  Repudiating  Question 
about  fifty  per  cent,  show  the  preverbal  position  of  ut. 

10  Die  tat.  Partikel  ut,  S.  301. 


XI,  P-  176)  "it  is  plain  that  ut  is  interrogative  in  these 
questions.''  •  Bennett  takes  issue,  however,  with  this 
opinion,  for  he  regards  the  sentence  under  discussion  as 
of  volitive  origin,  and  the  accompanying  ut  as  of  the 
strengthening  or  indefinite  type.  C/.,  Kuehner,  11,2,  S. 
209.^^  Apparently  he  is  right;  for  the  frequent  preverbal 
position  of  ut  in  clauses  of  this  kind  points  to  z^/-indefinite 
and  is  exactly  what  would  be  expected  as  seen  from  the 
previous  discussion  of  jussive  ut. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  original  function  of  the 
particle,  it  is  reasonably  sure  that  sentences  of  this  kind 
are  nearer  the  original  order.  (C/*.,  Dittmar,  op,  cit.,  S.  83, 
Dies  alles  sind  noch  parataktische  Satze.)  Even  if  re- 
garded as  'elliptische  Satze',  this  would  be  true  according 
to  our  discussion  that  will  follow  on  the  status  of  the  sub- 
stantive clause.  The  form  of  these  sentences  is,  to  be  sure, 
interrogative,  or  exclamatory,  and,  in  view  of  the  prevail- 
ing position  of  ut  in  other  interrogative  sentences,  might 
be  expected  to  present  the  particle  in  the  initial  position. 
They  are  not,  however,  absolute  questions  but  quasi- 
exclamations  and  often  take  the  form  of  an  echo.  (C/., 
Fay,  Mostellariaj  Introd.  67.) 

FINAL  CLAUSES  WITH  UT 

The  pure  final  clause,  as  in  the  case  of  ne,  shows  ut  in 
the  majority  of  instances  in  the  initial  conjunctional 
position. 

"  Cf.,  also  Dittmar,  Lateinische  Moduslehre,  S.  82,  Inzwischen  war  es  gekun- 
stelt,  bei  alien  in  der  Litteratur  vorkommenden  M/-Fragen  einen  derartigen  Sinn 
anzunehmen,  denn  bereits  in  vorplautinischer  Zeit  war  ut  allmahlich  zu  einer 
der  Frage  etwas  mehr  Nachdruck  gebenden  Partikel  herabgesunken,  so  dass  es 
auch  nicht  mehr  die  erste  Stelle  im  Satze  behauptete. 


24 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


25 


V  T»        /•                  l 

PL 

18 
16% 

Cat. 

3 
6% 

Ter. 

1 
10% 

CICERO 

Verg. 

I 

4% 

TJnr 

Ut'final 

Letters 

Fhtl. 

14 

3% 

Oral. 

23 

3% 

ilUT . 

Preverbal 

2 

3% 

3 
8% 

Preverbal  (verb 
forward) 

18 
16% 

8 

15% 

12 

18% 

6 
9% 

39 
10% 

58 
8% 

I 

4% 

'9% 

Intermediate 
Initial 

12 

10% 

67 

58% 

2 

3% 
39 

75% 

7 
10% 

42 
62% 

2 

3% 

57 

85% 

4 

1% 

351 

86% 

15 

2% 
625 

87% 

16 
70% 

5 
22% 

7 

19% 
19% 

53 

Remarks.  Percentages  on  the  preverbal  position  are  subject  to  a 
reduction.  See  p.  27.  The  high  percentage  of  the  intermediate 
position  in  Vergil  is  again  noteworthy  and  is  to  be  explained  on  metrical 
grounds.    C/.,  Remarks  on  table,  p.  17.    For  chronological  comparison, 

see  p.  36. 

A  comparison  of  this  table  on  the  affirmative  final 
clause  with  that  on  the  negative  final  clause  (p.  9)  shows 
that  the  preverbal  position  of  ut  is  much  more  frequent 
than  the  preverbal  position  of  ne.  Such  a  difference  we 
should  naturally  expect  because  of  the  original  difference 
in  the  native  force  of  the  particles,  ne  being  always  defi- 
nite in  meaning  and  ut  vague.  This  same  difference  mani- 
fests itself  both  in  the  adverbial  and  conjunctional  use  of 
the  particles.  According  to  our  tables  (p.  7  and  p.  19)  y^ 
see  that  in  early  Latin  the  preverbal  (adverbial)  position 
of  ne  in  the  independent  sentence  stands  at  seventy-three 
per  cent.,  while  that  of  ut  stands  at  forty-eight  per  cent. 
As  final  conjunctions  the  preverbal  percentages  are:  ne, 
one  per  cent.;  ut,  thirteen  per  cent.  In  other  words  nc 
is  more  definite  in  meaning  and  consequently  is  more 
regular  both  in  its  adverbial  and  conjunctional  positions 
than  ut. 


The  independent  sentence  with  indefinite  ut  (except 
where  analogy  has  been  at  work)  represents  ut  in  its  origi- 
nal adverbial  role  with  its  position  in  the  majority  of  exam- 
ples directly  before  the  verb,  while  the  pure  final  clause 
shows  it  as  a  conjunction  with  its  position  normally  at 
the  head  of  the  clause.  We  may  therefore  safely  regard 
these  two  types  of  clauses  as  representing  extremes  in 
usage  and  position  in  the  development  of  indefinite  ut. 
The  preverbal  position  of  the  particle  is  the  original  order. 
Lindskog  hints  at  this  as  a  possibility  in  his  treatise  on 
parataxis,  Quaestiones  de  Parataxi  et  Hypotaxi  apud  Priscos 
Latmos.  Under  a  chapter  division  entitled :  "In  Colloca- 
tione  coniunctionis  vestigia  parataxis  reperire  possumus," 
he  says  on  p.  50:  Et  de  particula  ut  res  apertior:  nam  vix 
dubitari  potest,  quin  ex  initio  secundariae  fuerit;  quod 
cum  aliae  res  tum  ipsa  collocatio,  quam  apud  Priscos 
videmus,  satis  comprobat.  Nam  ut  cum  persaepe  in 
secundariam  inseritur,  tum  saepissime  ante  verbum  secun- 
dariae ponitur,  ut  haud  sine  causa  suspicari  liceat  a  prin- 
cipio  hunc  locum  particulae  ut  fuisse. 

* 

CLAUSE  POSITION 

Clause  position,  too,  has  a  bearing  on  the  position  of 
the  particle.  When  the  main  verb  precedes,  ut  and  ne  tend 
to  be  initial,  but  when  the  main  verb  follows,  ut  and  ne 
very  frequently  stand  next  to  the  verb  of  their  clauses. 
It  seems  not  unreasonable  to  explain  this  latter  order  as 
a  survival  of  the  original  order,  where,  in  the  paratactic 
relationship,  the  particles  had  the  position  in  keeping  with 
their  independent  adverbial  functions.     Examples: 

Cist.      531,  sed  tamen  ibo  et  persequar:  amens  ne  quid  facial,  cauto 
opust. 


26  ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 

673,  quae  in  tergum  meum  ne  veninnt,  male  formido.^* 
Amph.  549,  tanto  brevior  dies  utfiat  faciam. 
As.         914,  atque  interea  ut  decumhamtis  suadebo. 
Cist.      662,  nam  hercle  ego  illam  anum  inridere  me  ut  sinam,  satiust 

mihi  quovis  exitio  interire. 
Epid.     354,  nunc  iterum  ut  fallaiur  pater  tibique  auxilium  apparetur 

inveni. 

463,  Mi  illam  ut  tramitlas,  argenlum  accipias,  adest. 
Mil.        960'  eius  nunc  mi  anulum  ad  te  ancilla  porro  ut  deferrem  dedit. 
Most.     876,  ubi  adversum  ut  eant  vocantur  ero. 
Persa      178,  ego  istuc  placidum  tibi  ut  sit  faciam. 

382,  necessitate  me  mala  utfiam  facis. 

526,  probum  et  numeratum  argentum  ut  accipiat  face. 
Poen.     864,  ilium  ut  perdant  facere  possum. 
Pseud.    549,  Quin  rus  ut  irem  iam  heri  mecum  statueram. 

818,  priusquam  triverunt  oculi  ut  extillent  facit. 
Stich.     73,  neque  equidem  id  factura  neque  tu  ut  facias  consilium  dabo. 
Trin.      800,  uxorem  quoque  eampse  banc  rem  uti  celes  face. 
And.       456,  ego  istaec  recte  utfia^t  videro. 

592,  gnatam  ut  det  oro. 
Haut.     T.  328,  nam  apud  patrem  tua  amica  tecum  sine  metu  ut  sit 

copiast. 
948,  Ac  iam  uxorem  ut  arcessat  paret. 
Hec.       116,  quom  pater  uxorem  ut  ducat  orare  occipit. 
Cato      cm.    Boves  uti  valeant  .     .     .  pabulum  quod  dabis  amurca 

spargito. 
XIX,  I,  supra  foramina  arborum,  pedem  quoque  uti  absich 

fibulae  locum  facito. 
Cic.         In  Pisonem  51,  ego  tamen  os  ut  videam  hominis,  expecto. 
Philip.     I,  10,  Hunc  igitur  ut  sequerer,  properavi. 
De  Divin.  11,8,  nihil  ut  adfirmem,  quaeram  omnia. 
Tusc.  II,  14,  quae  ut  effugias,  quis  est  non  modo  recusandus,  sed 

non  ultro  adpetendus  .     .     .  dolor? 
De  Leg.  II,  60,  id  quoque  nefieret,  lege  sanctum  est. 

"  Among  the  substantive  ne-clauses  of  fear  which  we  have  collected.  Plautus 
and  Terence  have  five  instances  of  preverbal  ne,  four  of  which  are  in  clause 
preceding  the  main  verb.  They  are  Capt.  91.  quod  mihi  ne  eveniat.  non  nu  urn 
periculum  est;  Capt.  253.  Edepol  tibi  ne  in  quaestione  essemus  cautum  mtelhgo, 
And.  400,  dicam.  puerum  autem  ne  resciscat  mi  esse  ex  ilia  cautiost;  Adelph. 
421.  piscis  ex  sententiae  nactus  sum:  ei  mihi  ne  corrumpantur  cautiost. 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


27 


De  Off.  111,100,  sententiam  ne  diceret,  recusavit. 

Phil.  11,42,  Haec  ut  cilligeres,  homo  amentissime,  tot  dies  in 

aliena  villa  declamasti? 
Pro.  Tull.     Id  ut  intelligatis,  recuperatores,  quaeso,  ut  dili- 

genter  attendatis. 
DeProv.  Cons.  19,  Bellum  adfectum  videmus  et,  vere /(/ (ficam, 

paene  confectum. 

The  table  on  the  ut-final  clause  (p.  24)  exhibits 
the  proportionate  occurrence  of  final  clauses  in  which 
the  conjunction  takes  the  preverbal  position,  but  if  we 
subtract  the  clauses  that  precede  the  main  verb  and  those 
that  are  parenthetically  inserted,  our  table  representing 
extremes  in  position  of  the  particle  stands  thus: 


Ut-final 

PL 
14 

Cato 

I 

Ter. 

CICERO 

Verg. 

I 

TTnr 

Letters 

Phil. 
4 

Oral. 
2 

iiur. 

Preverbal 

6 

I 

3 

17% 

3% 

15% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

16% 

14% 

Initial 

67 

39 

42 

57 

351 

625 

5 

19 

83% 

97% 

85% 

98% 

99% 

99% 

84% 

86% 

SUBSTANTIVE  CLAUSES 

With  this  statement  of  the  relation  of  function  and  posi- 
tion of  the  particle  in  clauses  which  furnish  the  extremes 
in  usage,  we  may  pass  to  the  substantive  clause  in  which 
the  preverbal  position  of  the  conjunctional  particle  is  of 
frequent  occurrence  and  which,  we  shall  presently  argue, 
occupies  an  intermediate  stage  in  clause  development. 
Instances  of  the  w^-substantive  clause  are  few  compared 
with  those  employing  ut,  but  are  of  sufficient  number  to 
use  in  illustration.    Examples  with  ut  are  quite  numerous: 

As.  103,  perficito,  argentum  hodie  ut  habeat  filius. 

462,  vah,  formido  miser,  ne  hie  me  tibi  arbitretur  suasisse  sibi 
ne  crederes. 


28  ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


Capt. 


Most. 
Amph. 


432,  Saurea,  oro,  mea  causa  ut  mittas. 
Bacch.   521,  eadem  exorabo,  Chrysalo  causa  mea  pater  ne  noceat.  ^ 
643,  callidum  senem,  callidis  dolis  conpuli  et  perpuli,  mi  omnia 

ut  crederet. 

690,  Ego  patrem  exoravi  .     .     .  Immo  tibi  ne  noceat. 
Cure.      550,  Quod  mandasti  feci,  tui  honoris  gratia,  tuom  qui  signum 

ad  me  attulisset,  nuntium  ne  spernerem. 

691,  Delicatum  te  hodie  faciam,  cum  catello  ut  acciibes. 

696,  obsecro,  Planesium,  et  te  Pliaedrome,  auxilium  ut  feras. 

337,  Fac  is  homo  ut  redimatur. 

443,  opsecro,  infidelior  mihi  ne  Juas  quam  ego  sum  tibi. 

511,  hie  extemplo  orat  obsecratque,  eum  sibi  ut  liceat  videre. 

1145,  fac  ego  ne  metuam  ut  tu  meam  timeas  vicem. 

54,  eandem  hanc,  si  voltis,  faciam  ex  tragoedia,  comoedia  ut 

sit  omnibus  isdem  vorsibus. 

1085,  At  ego  faciam,  tu  idem  ut  aliter  praedices,  Amphitruo, 

piam  et  pudicam  esse  uxorem  ut  scias. 
443,  ego  te  faciam  miserrimus  mortalis  uti  sis. 
727,  Oro  te,  Epidice,  mihi  ut  ignoscas. 

437,  tum  facito  ante  solem  occasum  ut  venias  advorsum  mihi. 
907,  quia  rogo,  palla  ut  referatur  rursum  ad  uxorem  meam. 
1006,  Obsecro  te,  quisquis  es,  operam  mihi  ut  des. 
488,  Achillem  orabo,  aurum  ^it  mihi  del. 
835,  vobis  mando,  meum  parentum  rem  bene  ut  tutemini. 
1002,  obsecro,  satis  iam  ut  haheatis. 
70,  orant,  ambiunt,  exobsecrant  videre  ut  liceat. 
1089,  Philocomasio  die,  si  est  istic,  domum  ut  transeat.^ 
1395,  facite  inter  terram  atque  caelum  ut  sit  situs,  discindite. 
1405,  Oratus  sum,  ad  eam  ut  irem. 
Most.     78,  facite,  hue  ut  redeat  noster  quam  primum  senex. 

424,  facturum  me  .     .     .  capite  obvoluto  utfugiat  cum  summo 

metu. 
465,  Metuo,  te  atque  istos  expiare  ut  possies. 
529,  Th.  Hercules,  ted  invoco.—Tr.  et  ego  tibi  hodie  ut  det. 
senex,  magnum  malum. 
Persa     382,  necessitate  me  mala  utfiam  facis. 

526,  probum  et  numeratum  argentum  ut  accipiat  face. 
.744,  Ego  pol  te  faciam,  scelus,  te  quoque  etiam  ipsum  ut 
lamenteris. 


Aul. 

Epid. 

Men. 


Merc. 


Mil. 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


29 


Poen.     864,   Me  non  perdent;    ilium  ut  perdant  facere  possum,  si 

velim  meum  erum  ut  perdant,  ni  mihi  metuam,  Milphio. 
913,  vale  et  haec  cura  clanculum  ut  sint  dicta. 
Pseud.    113,  Satin  est,  si  hanc  hodie  mulierem  efificio  tibi  tua  ut  sit. 
128,    omni   poplo,   omnibus  amicis  notisque   edico   meis,    in 

hunc  diem  a  me  ut  caveant. 
164,  haec,  quom  ego  a  foro  revortar,  facite  ut  offendam  parata 

vorsa  sparsa,  tersa  strata,  lautaqne  unctaque  omnia  ut  sint. 
549,  Quin  rus  ut  irem  iam  heri  mecum  statueram. 
817,  quae  illis  qui  terunt  priusquam  triverunt  oculi  ut  extillen 

facit. 
921,  dum  ille  dormit,  volo  tu  prior  ut  occupes  adire. 
1227,  dixin,  ab  eo  tibi  ut  caveres,  centiens? 
Rud.      602,  rogare  scalas  ut  darem  utendas  sibi. 

695,  ambae  te  obsecramus,   aram  amplexantes  hanc  tuam 

lacrumentes,  genibus  nixae,  in  custodelam  nos  tuam  ut  recipias 

et  tutere. 
834*  Quaeso  hercle,  abire  ut  liceat. 
1088,  Fac  sis  aurum  ut  videam,  post  ego  faciam  ut  videas  cis- 

tulam. 
II 20,  Ut  id  occepi  dicere,  senex,  eam  te  quaeso  cistulam  ut 

iubeas  hunc  reddere  illis. 
12 15,  Iam  hie  fac  sit,  cena  ut  curetur. 
Trin.      583,  die  Callicli,  me  ut  conveniat. 

800,  Uxorem  quoque  eampse  hanc  rem  uti  celes  face. 
And.       168,  nunc  tuomst  officium,  has  bene  ut  adsimules  nuptias. 
335»  ego  id  agam,  mihi  qui  ne  detur. 
483,  nunc  primum  fac  istam  ut  lavet. 
524,  non  impulit  me,  haec  nunc  omnino  ut  crederem. 
577,  et  is  mihi  suadet  nuptias  quantum  queam  ut  maturem. 
603,  feci  hodie  utfierent  insperante  hoc  atque  invito  Pamphilo. 
712,  Hue  fac  ad  me  7it  venias,  siquid  poteris. 
Haut.    T.  90,  Sine  me,  vocivom  tempus  w^quod  dem  mihi  laboris. 

T.  170,  tempust  monereme  huncvicinum  Phaniam.  ad  cenam  ut 

venial. 
Eun.      266,  et  rogare  ad  cenam  ut  venial. 

340,  ut  diligenter  nunties  patri,  advocatus  mane  mi  esse  ut 

meminerit. 


30  ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 

579,  in  interiore  parte  ut  tnaneam  solus  cum  sola. 
808,  Tun  me  prohibeas,  meam  ne  tangam. 

The  following  table  shows  the  positions  of  ut  in  sub- 
stantive clauses: 


Suhst, 

PL 

Cato 

Ter. 

CICERO 

Verg. 

Hor 

ut-clauses  ^' 

Letters 

PhiL 

Orat. 

Preverbal 

43 
33% 

7 
19% 

43 
50% 

8 

5% 

12 

2% 

27 

2% 

5 
18% 

Preverbal  (verb 
forward) 

16 
12% 

4 
11% 

15 
17% 

21 
14% 

37 

5% 

64 
6% 

3 
15% 

3 
11% 

Intermediate 

2 

2% 

3 
8% 

I 

1% 

4 

2% 

7 

10 

6 
46% 

6 

22% 

Initial 

71 

53% 

22 
61% 

28 
32% 

121 

79% 

707 

93% 

1052 
91% 

5 
39% 

13 

48% 

Remarks.  This  table  shows  the  high  percentage  of  the  preverbal 
position  of  ut  in  substantive  clauses  in  early  Latin.  As  to  the  extreme 
positions  for  the  early  period,  forty-four  per  cent,  of  the  examples  (in- 
cluding the  preverbal  position  with  the  verb  standing  in  the  second 
position  in  the  clause)  show  the  particle  in  the  preverbal  position,  with 
fifty-six  per  cent,  in  the  initial  position.  For  the  later  period  nine  per 
cent,  have  the  preverbal  position,  while  ninety-one  per  cent,  show  the 
initial  position.  On  the  intermediate  position  in  Vergil,  c/.,  Remarks 
on  table,  p.  17. 

Compared  with  other  subordinate  clauses  in  early  Latin 
the  substantive  clause  exhibits  the  largest  proportion  of 
ut  in  the  preverbal  position.  It  seems  certain  that  the 
substantive  clause  in  the  relationship  of  clause  to  clause 
is  less  dependent  syntactically  than  a  pure  final  clause, 
for  the  use  of  the  conjunctional  particle  is  not  always 
requisite.      Instances   are   numerous    (See   Weissenhorn, 

"  Including  Appositional  and  Explanatory  Clauses. 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


31 


Parataxis  Plautina,  p.  9,  and  Holtze,  Synt,  II,  166,  n.  20). 
A  few  examples  will  suffice: 

Pseud.  325,  Immo  vin  etiam  te  faciam  ex  laeto  laetantem  magis? 

Cato  R.  R.,  c.  5,  Opera  omnia  mature  conficias  face. 

Pers.  293,  Amicus  sum:  eveniant  volo  tibi  quae  optas. 

And.  819,  me  nolo  in  tempore  hoc  videat  senex. 

In  the  final  clause,  on  the  contrary,  the  conjunction  is 
required.  To  illustrate:  In  the  final  clause  PI.  Men.  558, 
ibo  et  conveniam  servom,  si  potero,  meum,  ut  haec,  quae 
bona  dant  di  mihi,  ex  me  sciat,  the  z^/-clause  is  fully  de- 
pendent, both  logically  and  syntactically.  The  particle, 
consequently,  is  a  full  conjunction  and  takes  the  initial 
position  as  usual.  But  PI.  Men.  1007,  Obsecro  te,  quis- 
quis  es,  operam  mihi  ut  des,  the  main  verb  requires  the 
complement  of  the  z^/-clause.  The  logical  interdependence 
is  very  close,  while  syntactical  dependence  is  not  so  pro- 
nounced. It  might  be  said  that  the  z^/-clause  here  is 
practically  independent  and  not  objectively  complemen- 
tary. The  fact  that  it  is  susceptible  of  the  two  interpre- 
tations proves,  at  least,  that  the  situation  as  between  in- 
dependence and  dependence  is  not  definitely  settled.  (A 
better  illustration,  perhaps,  may  be  found  in  a  «e-clause, 
see  Capt.  443.)  The  frequent  preverbal  position  of  the 
particle  in  the  substantive  clause  is  not  without  meaning, 
for  the  preverbal  position  simply  points  to  the  original 
adverbial  use  and  unites  with  the  fact  just  stated  to  show 
that  the  substantive  clause  is  in  a  comparatively  less 
advanced  stage  of  development  syntactically. 

EXPLANATORY  CLAUSES 

Those  substantive  clauses,  which  are  commonly  defined 
as  appositional  or  explanatory,  are  especially  illustrative 
of  the  semi-independence,  which  substantive  clauses  tend 


32  ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 

to  manifest  in  general.  Such  clauses  form  a  part  of  a 
familiar  mechanism,  in  which  a  demonstrative  pronoun, 
or  some  word  of  general  significance  (e.  g.,  rem),  or  even  a 
substantive  of  specific  meaning  in  the  main  clause  is  fol- 
lowed by  an  appositional  or  explanatory  substantive 
clause.  As  an  illustration  we  may  cite  Capt.  443»  haec  per 
dexteram  tuam  te  retinens  manu  obsecro,  infidelior  mihi 
ne  fuas  quam  ego  tibi.  The  substantive  clause,  which  is 
the  real  object  of  the  main  verb,  is  represented  in  the 
main  clause  by  the  antecedent  ^haec*,  from  which  arrange- 
ment there  results,  as  it  seems  to  us,  a  certain  semi-inde- 
pendence for  the  appositional  clause  and  consequent  free- 
dom for  the  position  of  the  conjunctional  particle.  The 
need  for  the  conjunction  is  less  and  there  is,  in  effect, 
a  tendency  toward  the  original  order.    Examples: 

Cure.      550,  Quod  mandasti  feci,  tui  honoris  gratia,  tuom  qui  signum 

ad  me  attulisset,  nuntium  ne  spernerem. 
Cas.        1006,  propter  earn  rem  hanc  tibi  nunc  veniam  minus  gravate 

prospero,  hanc  ex  longa  longiorem  nefaciamus  fabulam. 
Rud.      680,  Si  modo  id  liceat,  vis  ne  opprimat. 
Trin.      105,  Est  atque  non  est  mi  in  manu,  Megaronides,  quin  dicant, 

non  est;   merito  ut  ne  dicant,  id  est. 
And.       335,  ego  id  agam,  mihi  qui  ne  detur. 

168,  nunc  tuomst  ofificium,  has  bene  ut  adsimules  nuptias. 
548,  id  te  obsecro  in  commune  ut  consulas. 
625,  Hocinest  credibile  aut  hercle  memorabile  tanta  vecordia 
innata  quoiquam  ut  siet, 

701,  id  faciam,  in  proclivi  quod  est  per  me  stetisse  ut  credat. 
Phorm.  379,  primum  abs  te  hoc  bona  venia  peto,  si  tibi  placere  potis  est, 
mihi  ut  respondeas. 
832,  nunc  una  mihi  res  etiam  restat  quae  est  conficiunda, 
otium  ab  senibus  ad  potandum  ut  habeam. 
Amph.   567,  tune  id  dicere  audes  .     .     .  tempore  uno  homo  idem 
duobus  locis  ut  simul  sit. 
662,  atque  id  se  volt  experiri,  suom  abitum  ut  desiderem. 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


33 


mm 


As.         802,  si  dixerit,  haec  multa  ei  esto,  vino  viginti  dies  ut  careat. 
Capt.     515,  nunc  tu  sequere  me,  ut  quod  me  oravisti  impetres,  eum 
hominem  uti  convenias. 


Explanatory 

PL 

Cato 

Ter. 

CICERO 

Verg. 

Hor. 

Suhst.  iit-clauses 

Letters 

PhiL 

Oral. 

Preverbal 

6 

I 

13 

I 

6 

I 

2 

26% 

50% 

52% 

2% 

-5  erf 

3  /v 

20% 

Preverbal  (verb 

2 

2 

3 

13 

23 

forward) 

9% 

8% 

7% 

7% 

6% 

Intermediate 

3 
13% 

4 
16% 

5 
2% 

3 

3 
30% 

Initial 

12 

I 

6 

36 

157 

404 

2 

5 

52% 

50% 

24% 

90% 

87% 

93% 

50% 

SUBSTANTIVE  CLAUSES  ACCOMPANYING  IMPERSONAL  VERBS 

Substantive  clauses  accompanying  impersonal  verbs  and 
such  phrases  as  opus  est  are  also  shown  by  frequent  pre- 
verbal position  of  the  conjunction  to  be  less  perfectly  sub- 
ordinate than  are  substantive  clauses  in  general. 

Amph.   226,  convenit,  victi  utri  sint  eo  proelio,  urbem  agrum  aras 

focos  seque  uti  dederent. 
494,    non    par   videtur   facere,    delictum    suom    suamque    ut 

culpam  expetere  in  mortalem  ut  sinat. 
Men.      359,  item  hinc  ultro  fit,  ut  meret,  potissimus  nostrae  domi  ut  sit. 
Mil.        956,  nam  hoc  negoti  clandestino  ut  agerem  mandatumst  mihi. 
Most.     173,  Virtute  formae  id  evenit,  te  ut  deceat  quidquid  habeas. 
And.      916,  itane  attemperate  evenit,  hodie  in  ipsis  nuptiis  ut  veniret. 
Phorm.  65,  Evenit  senibus  ambobus  simul  iter  illi  in  Lemnum  ut  esset. 
Aul.        434,  me  haud  paenitet,  tua  ne  expetam. 
Rud.      680,  si  modo  id  liceat,  vis  ne  opprimat. 
Poen.     142 1,  hie  opus  est  aliquos  ut  maneas  dies. 
Stich.     588,  quid  eo  tibi  opust,  Hunc  hercle  ad  cenam  ut  vocem. 
Mil.        1132,  ad  me  ut  veniat  usust. 


34  ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 

Bacch.  422,  nego  tibi  hoc  annis  viginti  fuisse  primis  copiae,  digitum 
longe  a  paedagogo  pedem  ut  efferes  aedibus. 

As.  190,  i4.  non  meumst,  C.  nee  meum  quidem  edepol  ad  te  ut 
mittam  gratiis. 

Bacch.   329,  signum  id  cum  Theotimost,  qui  eum  illi  adferet  ei  aurum 

ut  reddat. 
Trin.      486,  id  optumum  esse,  tute  uti  sis  optumas. 
Bacch.    139,  non  par  videtur  neque  sit  consentaneum  .     .     .  praesen- 
tibus  una  paedagogus  ut  siet. 

The  majority  of  substantive  clauses  in  the  natural 
course  of  development  came  to  have  ne  and  ut  at  the  head 
of  the  clause. 

Capt.     727,  Per  deos  atque  homines  te  obtestor,  Hegio,  ne  tu  istunc 

hominem  perduis. 
Men.      881,  vosque  omnis  quaeso,  si  senex  revenerit,  ne  me  indicetis 

qua  platea  hinc  aufugerim. 
Capt.     308,  non  verear  ne  inuste  aut  graviter  me  imperet. 
Most.     542,  metuo  ne  de  hac  re  quippiam  indaudiverit. 
As.         39,  Teque  obsecro  hercle,  ut  quae  locutus  despuas. 
Merc.     665,  orabo,  ut  conquisitores  det  mihi. 
Men.      4,  quaeso  ut  benignis  auribus  accipiatis. 
Bacch.   762,  Metuoque  ut  hodie  possiem  emolirier. 

This  forward  shift  in  the  position  of  conjunctional  par- 
ticles in  substantive  clauses  is  due  in  part  no  doubt  to  the 
attraction  exerted  by  the  verbs  of  the  principal  clause. 
Starting,  say,  with  obsecro,  oro,  metuo,  etc.,  in  parataxis 
with  a  subjunctive  clause,  the  particles  ut  and  ne  would 
gradually  come  to  be  felt  as  belonging  to  the  preceding 
orOy  obsecro,  metuo,  etc.,  which  functioned  as  main  verbs 
when  the  subjunctive  clauses  containing  ne  and  ut  became 
syntactically  subordinate  to  them.  Hence  there  arose 
ultimately  the  stereotyped  expressions  obsecro  ut,  oro  ut, 
metuo  ut,  etc.,  as  affirmative  and  obsecro  ne,  oro  ne, 
metuo  ne,  etc.,  as  negative. 


i 


I 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


35 


SENTENCES  WITH  ARCHAIC  STRUCTURE 

Clauses  such  as  the  following  are  probably  survivals  of 
archaic  sentence  structure  and  doubtless  indicate  the 
original  association  of  the  particle  and  verb. 

Most.     558,  sed  eum  videto  ut  capias. 

Adelph.  874,  ilium  ut  vivat  optant.^^ 

Haut.     T.  84,  atque  istuc,  quidquid  est,  fac  me  ut  sciam. 

493,  porro  te  idem  oro  ut  facias,  Chremes. 
Cato     XXXVIII,  2,  ignem  caveto  ne  intermittas  quin  semper  siet. 
C/.,  also  Adelph,  771,  Exemplo  omnibus  curarem  ut  esses.  Cato  V,  6, 
terram  cariosam  cave  ne  ares. 

SUBSTANTIVE  CLAUSES  DEPENDING  UPON  VERBS  OF  FEAR 

Statistical  evidence  for  substantive  clauses  of  fear  decid- 
edly favors  the  formulaic  expressions  timeo  ne,  metuo  ne, 
etc.,  even  in  the  time  of  Plautus. 


Suhst.  CI.  of  Fear 

PI. 

Cato 

Ter. 

CICERO 

Verg. 

Hor, 

Letters 

Phil. 

Orat. 

Preverbal 

2 

2 

2  15 

I 

Intermediate 

5% 
3 

7% 

I 

I 

I 

I  % 

5 

2o  /o 

I 

Initial 

7% 
35 
88% 

9 

3% 
25 
89% 

4% 
25 
96% 

2% 
58 
98% 

0  /C 
132 

95% 

3 

75% 

12% 

7 

88% 

A  reason  for  the  attraction  of  verbs  of  fear,  caution,  etc., 
for  the  particle  is  furnished  by  the  very  nature  of  the 
verbs  themselves,  for  they  carry  an  inherent  idea  of  nega- 
tion. In  the  case  of  caveo,  the  notion  of  negation  is  so 
strong  that  the  particle  is  even  omitted  at  times.    £.  g., 

Cas.       530,  Sed  tu  cave  in  quaestione  mihi  sis. 

Most.     1025,  Tu  cave  quadraginta  accepisse  hinc  te  neges. 

**  Donatus  refers  to  this  as  an  archaism. 
*'  Precede  main  verb. 


36 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


37 


Capt.  431,  Cave  tu  mi  iratus  fuas. 

Amph.  608,  Cave  quicquam  .     .     .  mihi  responderis. 

Aul.  90,  Cave  quemquam  alienum  in  aedis  intromiseris. 

Men.  994  Cave  quisquam  vostrum  flocci  fecerit. 

Bacch.  1033,  Cave  tibi  ducenti  nummi  dividiae  fuant. 

Cure.  461,  Leno,  cave  in  te  sit  mora  mihi. 

Rud.  704,  Cave  tu  harum  conchas  spernas. 

The  following  outline  is  inserted  for  convenience  in 
chronological  comparison.  Percentages  are  based  on  ex- 
amples exhibiting  the  particles  in  the  extreme  positions. 


Ne 


Preverbal  Position 


Initial  Position 


Independent  Clauses 

Final  Clauses 

Substantive  Clauses  of  Fear 

Independent  Clauses 

Final  Clauses 

Substantive  Clauses  of  Fear 

Ut 


Preverbal  Position    < 


Initial  Position 


Substantive  Clauses 
Final  Clauses 
Relative  ut-Clauses 
Consecutive  Clauses 

Substantive  Clauses 
Final  Clauses 
Relative  ut-Clauses 
Consecutive  Clauses 


Earlier 

Later 

76% 

39% 

1% 

2% 

5% 

1% 

24% 

61% 

99% 

98% 

95% 

99% 

43% 

3% 

16% 

4% 

3% 

1% 

7% 

1% 

57% 

97% 

84% 

96% 

97% 

99% 

93% 

99% 

Remarks.  The  parallel  columns  in  the  above  table,  representing 
the  earlier  and  later  periods  of  Latin,  show  that  preverbal  ne  and  lit 
are  relatively  much  more  frequent  in  early  Latin.  Of  the  clauses  em- 
ploying ne,  the  independent  clause  shows  that  a  rather  high  percentage 
of  the  preverbal  position  is  maintained  for  the  later  period,  but  quite 
naturally  so,  as  the  function  of  the  word  is  strictly  adverbial.    In  final 


clauses  and  substantive  clauses  dependent  upon  verbs  of  fear,  caution 
etc.,  there  is  no  appreciable  change,  the  conjunctional  position  having 
been  practically  fixed  in  the  earlier  period.  As  to  substantive  clauses 
introduced  by  ne,  other  than  those  accompanying  verbs  of  fear,  etc., 
we  have  stated  above  that  instances  were  too  few  in  the  material 
examined  by  us  to  form  a  basis  of  comparison. 

[//-clauses  show  a  general  drift  in  one  direction  toward  the  initial 
conjunctional  position  at  the  head  of  the  clause.  Substantive  and  final 
clauses  have  a  marked  reduction  of  the  preverbal  position  for  the  later 
period.  Relative  ///-clauses  and  consecutive  clauses  show  a  slight  re- 
duction in  the  preverbal  position,  no  great  change  of  course  being 
possible,  as  the  position  of  ut  in  these  clauses  was  normally  initial  in 
early  Latin.  The  greatest  change  is  seen  in  substantive  and  final 
clauses,  a  situation  which  results  from  the  conjunctional  development 
of  indefinite  ut. 

Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  a  uniform  development  is  seen  in  chronolog- 
ical outline  for  the  historical  period,  we  may  safely  assume  that  this 
is  but  a  continuance  of  the  development  which  began  in  the  period 
previous  to  extant  records. 

UT  AND  NE  IN  THE  SAME  CLAUSE 

Ut  and  ne  are  frequently  combined  in  usage.    Examples  : 

Capt.     267,  ne  id  quidem,  involucrum  iniccre,  voluit,  vestem  ut  ne 

inquinet. 
Most.     1053,  pergunt  turbare  usque,  ut  ne  quid  possit  conquiescere. 
Mil.       199,  qui  illam  hie  vidit  osculantem,  id  visum  ut  ne  visum  siet. 
And.       259,  aliquid  facerem,  ut  hoc  ne  facerem. 

899,  hoc  modo  te  obsecro,  ut  ne  credas  a  me  adlegatum  hunc 

senem. 
Adelph.  354,  mea  Canthara,  curre,  obstetricem  arcesse,  ut  quom  opus 

sit  7ie  in  mora  nobis  siet. 
Phorm.  415,  an,  ut  ne  quid  turpe  civis  in  se  admitteret  propter  egestatem. 

Cicero's  Orations  contain  a  total  of  seventy-six  exam- 
ples.   A  few  of  these  will  suffice  to  illustrate. 

Rab.       37,  Nihil  alius  vos  orat,  nisi  iiti  ne  se  .     .     .  privetis. 
Sulla      27,  sin  quaeris,  qui  sint  Romae  regnum  occupare  conati,  ut  ne 
replices  annalium  memoriam. 


38  ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 

Cluent.  6,  haec  postulo,  primum  id,  quod  aequissimum  est,  ut  ne  quid 

hue  prae  iudicati  adferatis. 
Mur.      86,  atque  obsecro,  iudices,  ut  ne  hominis  miseri  ut  cum  corpori 

morbo  .     .     .  ohruatis. 
Cael.      8,  deinde  id  ea  in  alterum  ne  dicas. 
Piso        17,  Omitto  enim  illud,  consulem  edicere,  ut  senatus  consulto 

ne  obtemperetur. 
Plane.    92,  sed  etiam,  si  ruere  vellem,  boni  viri  me,  tit  id  ne  facerem 

rogarent. 

In  the  Latin  we  have  studied,  ut  and  ne  do  not  appear  in 
combination  in  the  independent  sentence,  but  in  the  sub- 
ordinate clause  occurrence  is  moderately  frequent.  In 
the  majority  of  instances  the  particles  stand  in  juxtaposi- 
tion at  the  head  of  the  clause,  but  sometimes  they  are 
separated.  In  that  case,  ut  normally  occupies  the  initial 
position,  while  ne  has  greater  freedom  and  appears  inter- 
mediately or  directly  before  the  verb,  thereby  pointing  to 
its  original  adverbial  nature.  C/.,  Abbott,  op.  ciL,  Ep. 
XXX,  I,  n,  "originally  ne  had  purely  a  negative  force  in 
this  combination."  (The  compound  ut  ne  is  'transposed' 
in  the  three  following  instances:  And.  327,  Capt.  267, 
Trin.  105. 

SUMMARY 

In  the  foregoing  discussion  it  has  been  shown,  we  think, 
that  the  so-called  'trajection'  or  'transposition'  of  the  sub- 
ordinate conjunctions  ne  and  ut  is  not  due  to  an  artificial 
word  order  adopted  for  the  sake  of  securing  emphasis  by 
the  forced  and  mechanical  displacement  of  the  conjunc- 
tional particles,  but  is  rather  an  historical  survival  of  the 
original  order  of  words  in  the  sentence,  by  which  the  con- 
junctional particles,  originally  adverbs  and  by  nature 
closely  associated  with  their  verbs,  were  normally  placed 
in  the  position  directly  preceding  the  verb.    The  position 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


39 


of  the  conjunctional  particles  at  the  head  of  the  clause, 
which  is  regarded  as  the  normal  conjunctional  position  in 
classical  Latin,  we  interpreted  as  arising  from  various 
causes. 

We  first  discussed  the  adverbial  nature  of  ne.  Its  ety- 
mology pointed  clearly  to  its  source  in  an  Indo-European 
negative  particle,  which  was  later  employed  in  the  Italic 
languages  as  a  prohibitive  particle.  Its  use  as  a  negative 
adverb  in  Latin,  before  its  development  into  a  subordi- 
nate conjunction,  we  found  freely  illustrated  in  the  inde- 
pendent volitive  sentence.  The  position  of  the  particle 
was  shown  to  correspond  with  its  adverbial  function,  as 
it  was  placed  immediately  before  the  verb  in  the  majority 
of  sentences  examined.  This  preverbal  position  we 
assumed  as  the  original  and  normal  position  and  as  the 
source  of  what  is  called  'trajection*  in  the  later  conjunc- 
tional uses.  It  then  remained  to  explain  the  frequent 
placing  of  the  particle  apart  from  the  verb  at  the  head 
of  the  sentence,  so  we  suggested  certain  factors  which 
tend  to  produce  this  result. 

We  then  turned  to  subordinate  clauses  to  ascertain  the 
position  of  ne  as  a  conjunction.  In  the  negative  final 
clause,  statistical  evidence  showed  plainly  that  the  con- 
junction was  regularly  initial,  there  being  but  two  in- 
stances of  the  preverbal  position  in  final  clauses  in  the 
whole  of  Plautus  and  Terence  according  to  the  complete 
list  of  examples  collected  by  Schuenke.  Substantive 
clauses  were  relatively  too  few  to  form  a  basis  of  judgment, 
except  those  dependent  upon  verbs  of  fear,  caution,  etc. 
In  these,  the  conjunctional  position  at  the  head  of  the 
clause  was  the  rule  with  but  exceedingly  few  exceptions. 

In  the  case  of  uty  we  met  with  a  more  complex  situation 
and  consequently  our  thesis  that  the  position  of  the  par- 


40  ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 

tide  should  correspond  with  its  function  was  subjected 
to  a  more  thorough  test.  In  respect  to  the  frequent  trans- 
position of  ut,  we  discovered  at  the  very  outset  that  any 
remarks  on  its  position  would  be  meaningless  if  we  did 
not  take  into  consideration  the  fact  of  its  separate  and 
distinct  functions.  The  interrogative  and  relative  func- 
tions are  beyond  dispute.  We  presented  citations  of 
opinion  from  various  scholars  regarding  a  third  func- 
tion, referred  to  by  some  as  'ellipticaF,  by  others  as 
'indefinite'.  The  opinion  of  those  contending  for  an 
original  indefinite  value  of  ut  seemed  to  us  the  niore 
natural  one,  and  this  was  confirmed  by  investiga- 
tions with  reference  to  our  own  subject,  for  evidence 
resulting  from  the  study  of  the  position  of  the  particle 
showed  that  the  preverbal  position  was  confined  chiefly 
to  clauses  in  which  the  so-called  indefinite  tit  was  em- 
ployed. This  state  of  affairs  we  accepted  as  indicating 
that  the  ut,  which  was  called  'indefinite',  is  not  identical 
with  relative  or  interrogative  ut,  which  stands  normally  at 
the  head  of  the  clause.  Our  discussion  was  then  directed 
to  showing  that  the  position  of  ut  in  the  great  majority 
of  instances  paralleled  its  function,  accordingly  as  this 
was  interrogative,  relative,  or  indefinite. 

Interrogative  ut  in  its  independent  use  as  illustrated  by 
direct  interrogations  and  exclamations  was  shown  to 
stand  normally  at  the  head  of  the  sentence.  The  fact  that 
the  adverbial  function  and  position  were  seemingly  at 
variance  in  these  sentences,  we  explained  as  being  due 
doubtless  to  the  prevailing  tendency  for  interrogative 
and  exclamatory  particles  of  all  kinds  to  stand  in  the 
initial  position.  In  the  dependent  conjunctional  use,  also, 
interrogative  ut  generally  held  to  the  initial  position. 
Relative  ut  (modal,  temporal,  causal,  concessive,  restric- 


ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 


41 


tive,  etc.),  in  accordance  with  its  probable  interrogative 
origin,  we  found  to  stand  at  the  head  of  the  clause,  its 
function  of  course  being  strictly  conjunctional.  The 
same  was  true  of  consecutive  ut,  which  seems  to  have 
been  originally  relative.  Indefinite  ut,  employed  as 
an  adverbial  particle  of  reenforcement  in  independent 
sentences,  w^as  discussed  under  its  subdivisions  of 
jussive  and  optative.  In  its  jussive  use  the  posi- 
tion of  the  particle  showed  frequent  instances  of  the 
preverbal  position,  while  in  its  optative  use  the  initial 
position  was  the  more  common.  The  jussive  and  optative 
functions  of  the  particle  being  identical,  it  was  necessary 
to  offer  an  explanation  for  the  discrepancy  in  position. 
This  difference  was  explained  as  due  to  the  difference  in 
kind  of  sentence,  jussive  ut  naturally  holding  to  the  ad- 
verbial position,  while  optative  ut  became  fixed  as  a  rule 
in  the  initial  position,  from  usage  in  interrogative-exclama- 
tory sentences  in  which  introductory  particles  from  the 
very  nature  of  such  sentences  stand  at  the  head.  In  the 
repudiating  question,  also,  it  was  pointed  out  that  ut 
showed  a  strong  tendency  to  stand  next  to  the  verb,  a 
fact  which  we  interpreted  as  pointing  to  a  volitive  origin 
for  this  type  of  sentence,  the  accompanying  particle  being 
the  indefinite  particle  of  reenforcement  and  corresponding 
exactly,  as  we  should  have  expected,  with  the  independent 
jussive  use  and  position. 

Of  the  three  functions  of  ut,  then,  the  preverbal  posi- 
tion appeared  to  be  associated  most  regularly  with  the 
indefinite.  This  fact  was  further  illustrated  by  con- 
trasting the  position  of  the  particle  in  independent 
volitive  and  final  clauses.  The  independent  sentence 
represented  ut  (except  when  analogy  had  been  at  work) 
in  its  original  adverbial  use  as  tending  to  stand  directly 


42  ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 

before  the  verb,  while  the  final  clause  exhibited  it  in  its 
conjunctional  use  with  its  position  generally  at  the  head 
of  the  clause.    These  two  types  of  clauses  we  regarded  as 
representing  extremes  in  usage  and  position.     The  pre- 
verbal  position  in  the  independent  clause  we  assumed  to 
be  the  original  order,  while  the  conjunctional  position  at 
the  head  of  the  dependent  final  clause  represented  the 
opposite  extreme  in  the  development  of  the  indefinite 
adverbial  particle  into  the  conjunction.    Contrasted  with 
final  clauses,  statistics  showed  that  the  preverbal  posi- 
tion was  of  very  frequent  occurrence  in  the  substantive 
clause.     Indeed,  of  all  the  dependent  clauses  in  early 
Latin  examined  by  us  the  substantive  clause  exhibited  the 
largest  proportion  of  the  preverbal  position  of  ut,  from 
which  fact  it  was  inferred  that  the  substantive  clause  from 
the  standpoint  of  clause  development  stands  nearer  the 
original  paratactic  order  than  other  subordinate  clauses. 
In  further  confirmation  of  this  semi-independence  of  the 
substantive  clause  we  called  attention  to  the  frequent 
omission  of  the  conjunctional  particle  in  contrast  with 
the  final  clause,  which  does  not  function  without  it.    The 
ultimate  regularity  of  the  conjunctional  position  of  the 
particle  at  the  head  of  the  substantive  clause  in  classical 
Latin  we  regarded  as  due  to  a  natural  evolution  in  clause- 
relationship,  certain  phases  of  which  were  then  discussed. 
Finally,  by  chronological  statistics,  it  was  shown  that 
the  preverbal  position  of  ne  and  iit  was  much  more  fre- 
quent in  early  Latin  than  in  the  classical  period,  the  gen- 
eral drift  of  development,  where  an  appreciable  change  was 
possible,  having  been  in  the  one  direction  toward  the  head 
of  the  clause.  This  uniformityof  development  in  the  histor- 
ical period  we  accepted  as  but  a  continuance  of  the  develop- 
ment which  began  in  the  period  prior  to  our  records. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


F.  F.  Abbott,  Selected  Letters  of  Cicero,  Boston,  1897. 

Eduard  Becker,  De  Syntaxi  Interrogationiim  Obliquarum  aptid  Priscos. 
Scriptores  Latinos  (Studemund,  Studien  des  Archaischen  Lateins,  Ber- 
lin, 1873). 

K.  Brugmann,  Die  Demonstrativpronomina  der  indogermanischen 
Sprachen,  Leipzig,  1904. 

K.  Brugmann,  Grundriss  der  vergleichenden  Grammatik  der  indoger- 
manischen Sprachen,'^  II,  2,  Strassburg,  1911. 

Chas.  E.  Bennett,  Syntax  of  Early  Latin,  Vol.  I,  Boston,  1910. 

Bruns,  Pontes  Juris  Romani  Antiquae,  Tubingae,  1909. 

M.  Porci  Catonis  De  Agri  Cultura,  ed.  Henrich  Keil,  Lipsiae,  1884. 

M.  Tullii  Ciceronis  Scripta  Qtiae  Manserunt  Omnia,  ed.,  C.  F.  W. 
Mueller,  Lipsiae,  1889. 

Bastian  Dahl,  Die  lateinische  Partikel  ut,  Kristiania,  1882. 

A.  Dittmar,  Studien  zur  lateinischen  Moduslehre,  Leipzig,  1897. 

C.  L.  Durham,  The  Subjunctive  Substantive  Clauses  in  Plautus  Not 
Including  Indirect  Questions  (Cornell  Studies  in  Classical  Philology, 
No.XIII),  1901. 

B.  L.  Gildersleeve,  Latin  Grammar,  New  York,  1905. 
W.  G.  Hale,  Hale-Buck  Latin  Grammar,  Boston,  1903. 

F.  W.  Holtze,  Syntaxis  Priscorum  Scriptorum  Latinorum  Usque  Ad 
Terentium,  Lipsiae,  1861. 

Q.  Horatius  Flaccus,  Carmina,  ed.  F.  Vollmer,  Lipsiae,  19 13. 

Kraz,  Modus  der  rhetorischen  Fragen,  Stuttgart,  1862. 

R.  Kuehner,  Ausfiirliche  Grammatik  der  lateinischen  Sprache.     (Carl 

Stegmann),  II.  Band,  I.  Teil,  Hannover,  1912;  II.  Band,  II.  Teil, 

Hannover,  1914. 

G.  M.  Lane,  A  Latin  Grammar,  New  York,  1898. 
W.  M.  Lindsay,  Syntax  of  Plautus,  Oxford,  1907. 

C.  Lindskog,  Quaestiones  de  Parataxi  et  Hypotaxi  apud  Priscos  Latinos^ 
Lundae,  1896. 

E.  P.  Morris,  On  Principles  and  Methods  in  Latin  Syntax,  New  York, 
1901. 

Gustav  Mueller,  Uber  die  sogenannten  unwilligen  oder  misbilligen  Fra- 
gen im  Lateinischen,  Gorlitz,  1875. 


44  ON  THE  POSITION  IN  THE  CLAUSE  OF  NE  AND  UT 

Plautus,  Comoediae.ed.  F.  Leo,  Vol.  I,  Berlin,  1895;  Vol.  II,  Berlin, 

1896.  .     . 

E.  A.  Gutjahr-Probst,  Beitrdge  zur  lateinischen  Grammatik,  Leipzig, 

1883. 
J.  J.  Schlicher,  Classical  Philology,  II,  p.  79J7- 

Hermann  Schnoor,  Ziim  Gebrauch  von  id  bei  Plautus,  Neumunster,  1885. 
Emilius  Schuenke,  De  Traiectione  Coniiinctionum  et  Pronominis  Rela- 

tivi  Apud  Po'elas  Latinos,  Kiliae,  1906. 

F.  Sommer,  Handbiich  der  lateiniscJien  Laiit-  und  Formenlehre,  Heidel- 
berg, 1902. 

E.  H.  Sturtevant,  P.  Terenti  Andria,  New  York,  1914. 
Terentius,  Comoediae,  ed.  A.  Fleckeisen,  Lipsiae,  1910. 
A.  Walde,  Lateinisches  etymologisches  Worterbuch,  2.  Auflage,  Heidel- 
berg, 1910. 
I.  B.  Weissenhorn,  Parataxis  Plautina,  Burghausen,  1883. 
Carl  Wenglein,  Nei^e  und  Neque  im  alteren  Latein,  Tubingen,  1911. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

Columbia  University  in  the  City  of  New  York 


The  Press  was  incorporated  June  8,  1893.  to  promote  the  pubh- 
cation  of  the  results  of  original  research.  It  is  a  private  corporation, 
related  directly  to  Columbia  University  by  the  provisions  that  its 
Trustees  shall  be  officers  of  the  University  and  that  the  President  of 
Columbia  University  shall  be  President  of  the  Press. 

The  publications  of  the  Columbia  University  Press  include 
works  on  Biography.  History,  Economics,  Education,  Philosophy, 
Linguistics,  and  Literature,  and  the  following  series: 

Columbia  University  Contributions  to  Anthropology. 

Columbia  University  Biological  Series. 

Columbia  University  Studies  in  Cancer  and  Allied  Subjects. 

Columbia  University  Studies  in  Classical  Philology. 

Columbia  University  Studies  in  Comparative  Literature. 

Columbia  University  Studies  in  English. 

Columbia  University  Geological  Series. 

Columbia  University  Germanic  Studies. 

Columbia  University  Indo-Iranian  Series. 

Columbia  University  Contributions  to  Oriental  History  and 

Philology. 
Columbia  University  Oriental  Studies. 
Columbia  University  Studies  in  Romance  Philology  and 

Literature. 
Records  of  Civilization:  Sources  and  Studies. 

Adams  Lectures.  Carpentier  Lectures. 

Julius  Beer  Lectures.  Hewitt  Lectures. 

Blumenthal  Lectures.  Jesup  Lectures. 

Catalogues  will  be  sent  free  on  application. ^_ 

Lemcke  &  BuECHNER,  Agents 
30-32  West  27th  Street  New  York 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 
IN  CLASSICAL  PHILOLOGY 

Edited  by  the  Department  of  Classical  Philology 

The  Satire  of  Seneca  on  the  Apotheosis  of  Claudius,  Commonly 
Called  the  airoKoXoKVPTQiaLS.  A  Study.  By  Allan  Perley  Ball, 
Ph.D.    i2mo,  cloth,  pp.  vii  +  256.    $1.25  net. 

Stress  Accent  in  Latin  Poetry.  By  Elizabeth  Hickman  du  Bois, 
Ph.D.     i2mo,  cloth,  pp.  v  -f  96.    $1.25  net. 

Studies  in  the  Philosophical  Terminology  of  Lucretius  and 
Cicero.  By  Katharine  C.  Reiley,  Ph.D.  i2mo,  cloth,  pp.  ix  + 
133.    $1.25  net. 

Costume  in  Roman  Comedy.  By  Catharine  Saunders,  Ph.D. 
i2mo,  cloth,  pp.  X  4-  145.    $1.25  net. 

De  Infinitivi  Finalis  Vel  Consecutivi  Constructione  Apud 
Priscos  Poetas  Graecos.  By  Charles  Jones  Ogden,  Ph.D. 
8vo,  cloth,  pp.  65.    $1.00  net. 

The  Bellum  Civile  of  Petronius.  By  Florence  T.  Baldwin, 
Ph.D.    i2mo,  cloth,  pp.  viii  +  264.    $1.25  net. 

Religious  Cults  Associated  with  the  Amazons.  By  Florence 
Mary  Bennett,  Ph.D.  8vo,  pp.  ix  +  79.  Cloth,  $1.25  net,  paper 
$1.00  net. 

A  Study  of  Archaism  in  Euripides.  By  Clarence  Augustus 
Manning,  Ph.D.    8vo,  cloth,  pp.  xi  +  98.    $1.25  net. 

Studies  in  Magic  from  Latin  Literature.  By  Eugene  Tavenner, 
Ph.D.    8vo,  cloth,  pp.  x  +  155.    $1.25  net. 

Prolegomena  to  an  Edition  of  the  Works  of  Decimus  Magnus 
Ausonius.  By  Sister  Marie  Jose  Byrne,  Ph.D.  8vo,  cloth, 
pp.  viii  -f-  loi.    $1.25  net. 

The  Dream  in  Homer  and  Greek  Tragedy.  By  William  Stuart 
Messer,  Ph.D.     8vo,  cloth,  pp.  ix  +  105.    $1.25  net. 

On  the  Position  in  the  Clause  of  Ne  and  Ut  in  Certain  Docu- 
ments of  Colloquial  Latin.  By  William  T.  Rowxand,  Ph.D. 
8vo,  paper,  pp.  vii  -f-  44-    $1.00  net. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

Lemcke  and  Buechner,  Agents 
30-32  West  27TH  Street  New  York 


